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.

University of North Carolina publishes guide on squelching free speech

The coming dark age: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has published a guide to microaggressions that is essentially designed to allow leftists to shut down any speech they don’t like.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill issued a guide this week which instructs students that Christmas vacations and telling a woman “I love your shoes!” are “microagressions.” The taxpayer-funded guide — entitled “Career corner: Understanding microaggressions” — also identifies golf outings and the words “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” as microagressions.

The UNC Chapel Hill guide, published on Thursday, covers a wide range of menacing microaggressions — which are everyday words that radical leftists have decided to be angry or frustrated about.

The entire logic of “microaggressions”, where you are allowed to either put your fingers in your ears and scream “la-la-la-la-la-la-la” to avoid hearing words you disagree with or don’t like, or can use the law to punish anyone speaking those words, is offensive to the very concept of civilization and open-minded debate. That a university paid money to print a guide for doing so is even more appalling.


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


  • Cotour

    Related: How the left misrepresents, abuses and miss characterizes the Constitution.

    In this example SALON prints an article not about “microaggressions” and free speech and what the first Amendment is and is not, but in this case the Second Amendment and what its stated intent was (and was not).

    In the article there is create a whole bunch of rationals and explanations for the people being armed (and not), non of which is about what the founders were concerned about. This attempt at confusing and recasting the Founders intent is very effective, most of the public can not have a proper, rational and informed conversation about the issue.

    First you must understand the intent and then you can have a conversation and come to a reasonable opinion, but to have the conversation just based in false statements and emotion can only result in further confusion, and no reasonable conclusion. And the confusion and emotion is the better tool for the left than a reasoned conclusion based in actual fact.

    Come to what ever conclusion you come to, but do not arrive at that conclusion based on miss representations and disinformation that is essentially just propaganda.

  • Edward

    It must be a wonderful feeling to be the fascist arbiter of microagressions. Denying people of faith their faith, declaring that some people who say something are being microagressive, but if a leftist says the same thing he is considered heroic.

    If we were to self-impose censorship of these types of microagressions, we might replace the term “microagression” for every phrase that we used that was considered microaggressive, then instead of asking someone what they were doing for Christmas vacation, we would say something like “what are you doing for microagression.

    If, as a right-leaning person, I were to do the same self-imposed censorship for my own comments, here on this site, then microagression microagression, microagression microagression microagression.

    See how that works? Oops, sorry for the implication that you aren’t smart enough to get it; please replace the previous sentence with “microagression!”

  • Cotour

    I have a funny “microagression” / Freedom Of Speech story.

    A friend of mine stopped by today, he is an older (60+) former Bronx gang banger, a rough dude but of good humor. He told me a story about his recent attending of an oldies concert hosted by “Cousin Brucie” (you may not know who that is, I know the Zman will know him). My friend looks like Colonel George Custer, a rough looking Colonel Custer, long chin beard, pony tail, tattoos, the works. Black Confederate cowboy style hat, with crossed swords on the front, he wears his colors of today which consists of a denim vest with lots of very non ambiguous political statements, like, NO BAMA and TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT and the ever popular HILLARY FOR PRISON 2016. The vest is his own creation and is very well done and he wears it with pride. He stands out to say the least, a real character, rough around the edges but underneath, like most people a good sole. (but don’t screw with him, fear of confrontation is no longer in his lexicon)

    So he and his girl friend are sitting in the audience, the show had not yet started and he hears a group of ladies behind him talking about him (which happens a lot, mostly they want to have their pictures taken with him) and he hears them mention his Trump messages, so he turns around and begins talking to them. They too are Trump supporters and their conversation continues, still no show was going on. He was having a good time.

    And then he hears a woman who sitting with a man a couple of aisles up complaining about the talking. The woman says to my friend ” why don’t you sit down and be quiet?”. Now my friend can be a bit loud but he is respectful and if he thought he was in the wrong he might not have reacted as he did.

    He loudly points out that she is probably an (expletive) Liberal who does not know what the First Amendment is, “who are you to tell me to be quiet?” At which point he of course pulls out his pocket Constitution and waves it at her. “Don’t you know what the First Amendment is about?”

    (Now I can put a scenario together where before she said something to my friend the complaining woman first begins to gripe to the man that she was with wishing that the talking would cease and that he might accomplish that for her. He was either her husband or boy friend, and in my scenario he tells her, while looking at my friend, “will you shut the hell up!” :)

    My friend told me that after he continued to exercise his First Amendment rights (I think they were talking about politics) and pointed out her oppression of them he noticed that the guy that she was with got up and left her there to enjoy the concert all by herself.

    And that is my story about “microagression” and how one person chose to deal with it :)
    (He had me laughing pretty good because I could picture the whole thing in detail)

  • Edward

    Good story. Oops. Once again, please replace that first sentence with “microaggression!”

    Microaggression microaggression, microaggression microaggression microaggression.

    Welcome to Obama’s America, land of the formerly free. Er — microaggression!

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 *