Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.


“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.


Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.

A bogus scientific paper, with numerous errors, was accepted for publication by more than 150 peer-reviewed scientific journals.

A bogus scientific paper, with numerous errors, was accepted for publication by more than 150 peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The scientist purposely wrote a paper that should have been unacceptable for publication in order to see if peer-review would spot the problems. What he found was that more than half the journals to which he submitted didn’t notice or care, and accepted the paper as is.

The journals in this case were open-access, meaning that they are free to readers but charge authors money for publication. Thus, rejecting papers is against their financial interest. Nonetheless, the number of journals willing to be unethical is quite disturbing, and reveals a rottenness lurking in the heart of the science field that no one wants to talk about.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Your support is even more essential to me because I keep this site free from advertisements and do not participate in corrupt social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.

You can provide that support to Behind The Black with a contribution via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:


Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Patreon or Paypal don't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


  • Phil Berardelli

    If the article is true, it does indeed expose a rotten trend in what should be a field beyond reproach. Unfortunately, deceit and dishonesty have also peppered the climate science community for a long time now. As a former science writer, who has seen, first-hand, examples of bias and contempt for contrary points of view, I worry that when the depth of the deception is finally revealed, it could take a generation or more to repair the damage to the discipline’s credibility. Scientists, above all, should be fierce skeptics. When they are not, both the field and the public suffer.

  • Edward

    I have been hearing, recently, that psychology papers are also having a lot of trouble with credibility. There have been a couple of scientists whose works have been withdrawn due to falsified papers. Climate science is not the only field that is having trouble, but it does seem to be the only field that continues to rely on models that have demonstrably failed to predict reality.

    I certainly hope that fudging does not spread to the physical or space sciences. It is bad enough that we have buildings, bridges, and dams fail due to design or construction problems — it would be even more tragic if people were killed due to fudged science that the engineers relied upon.

    I would like to see fudge return to the confectionary and the ice cream parlor, where it belongs.

  • D. K. Williams

    150 journals? Sounds fishy to me.

  • Tom Billings

    Phil, I am very much afraid the time it takes to repair the damage will be longer than that. I have gotten, for years now, people responding in person to a datum I would put into a discussion about spaceflight (like the recent discovery of lavatube cave entrances on the Moon) with the reply, …”yeah, …and how do we know it isn’t another fake set of digits cooked up to keep someone in a job?” Then, they will cite some of the climate science maldiversions of peer review, or the biochemistry frauds, or the recently admitted stem cell frauds, as a reason to not believe in a picture of the skylight found in the Marius Hills region of the Moon.

    These sorts of direct problems with belief that science academics actually follow the scientific method are merging, in my experience, into the general distrust of academia spreading faster and faster in society. The brand that is “Science” cannot stand up to being totally identified with a collapsing academic world. We must find a way to get science separated in the minds of the rest of society from association with the betrayals that academia is becoming associated with. These range from financial predictions about the worth of a university degree, to the politics that dominates academia, to the insistence on freedom of speech only for those toeing the line of the majority in the faculty senate. All too many are realizing that universities have whored themselves to those in power regularly *at*least* since the 1530s, when Henry VIII bought the opinions of universities across Europe about his annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

    These problems have been brewing since no later than 1970, and taking 50 years to restore confidence in the scientific method *after* we defund the presently perversely performing institutions will be a good performance, ..if we can do it.

  • Tom Billings

    So, …what’s fishy about it?

    I know of people who submitted to at least 45 different journals before getting a paper published, ..when they weren’t paying for it either through themselves, or their department.

Readers: the rules for commenting!


No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.


However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.


Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *