Image

This Is the First Protest in History in Which Protestors Protested Against People Who Agree With Them

MANY are saying the events of the past fortnight – with marches against racism being held around the world – constitute a historic moment. I disagree. I don’t think much has actually happened. Scratch beneath the sound and fury of the protests and what have you got? A proposal to defund the police? An idea so irresponsible it could only be imagined by people whom police had kept safe long enough to become so incredibly stupid. So what are we left with? My social media feed is filled with posts from friends, who have always believed racism is wrong, affirming……

MANY are saying the events of the past fortnight – with marches against racism being held around the world – constitute a historic moment.

I disagree.

I don’t think much has actually happened. Scratch beneath the sound and fury of the protests and what have you got? A proposal to defund the police? An idea so irresponsible it could only be imagined by people whom police had kept safe long enough to become so incredibly stupid.

So what are we left with?

My social media feed is filled with posts from friends, who have always believed racism is wrong, affirming that racism is wrong.

This might be important if there was an argument. But everyone agrees racism is wrong. One might as well announce on Facebook that you believe the sky to be above us.

The desire to be part of a truly history-making moment is strong. But this isn’t it.

It isn’t a history-making moment because no history is being made. Everyone agrees that black lives matter. And even the police agree that the misuse of police power by rogue police is wrong!

This may be a historic moment only in the sense that it is the first protest in history in which protestors protested against people who agree with them!

The past fortnight was not this generation’s civil rights moment, as much as we might desire one since there are no civil rights long denied that are now being demanded.

The fact is, in Western countries, black people have never been less oppressed than they are today. This is proved by the fact that no legislation is being proposed and no examples of discrimination in law have been offered, other than an all-encompassing anger at “systemic racism”.

You couldn’t do better than to invite Dennis Denuto, the bumbling small-time lawyer from the 1997 movie The Castle, to summarise the protests.

“It’s justice, it’s law, it’s the vibe and, no that’s it, it’s the vibe. I rest my case”.

Many were emotionally moved to see white people repenting before black people for the sins of colonialism. But this is not new and it is certainly not history-making.

One might argue that such displays of collective guilt are indulgent and do nothing but condemn blacks to repeat history by continuing on as victims, though they actually live at a time when there has never been less oppression.

When a group of people apologise for things for which they bear no personal responsibility, the very concept of a virtuous person is changed – from one who exercises virtue to one who expresses correct sentiment. The most virtuous person in the past few weeks has been the one who expressed the right emotion the loudest, and to the most people.

It used to be the case that a man felt most responsible for his own behaviour and was judged by how he behaved toward those in his own house. From there rippled ever-decreasing areas of moral concern, of which he was also increasingly ignorant. Now, though, it is the other way around.

Influenced by social media and cheered on by the mob, a man is more likely to judge himself – and be judged – by the opinions he holds on events far from his immediate concern.

So a man might be a terrible person at home, but that is more than compensated for by his outrage at George Floyd’s death.

There is another pernicious aspect to this penchant of those with no personal responsibility for wrong apologizing to those who have suffered no personal wrong – the diluting effect it has on the morals of those receiving the apology.

It allows a man to be a terrible person at home, and blame history

“What can I do wrong to compare with the wrongs that my forebears suffered at the hands of your forebears?” is the response when someone dares to complain that looting and setting fire to property and beating old ladies with lumps of timber is unacceptable behaviour.

I’m struggling to think of anything specific or concrete that we can come away with, in this entire episode, that is meaningful or particularly helpful.

But a lot of feelings have been expressed in a kind of collective case of emotional incontinence.

So we feel like we have made history. And for a generation that thinks with its feelings and reasons by way of its emotions, that is probably good enough.

Special Request:

For nearly eight years, we've highlighted issues ignored by mainstream media and resisted globalist ideologies eroding Western civilization. We've done this joyfully, without paywalls, despite personal costs to our team. Your support has kept us going, but operating costs exceed donations, forcing us to use ads. We’d love to ditch them, so we’re asking for your help. If you value our work, please consider supporting us via Stripe or PayPal. Every bit helps us keep fighting for our kids’ future. Thank you!

What's New?

Use the blue arrows at the bottom to scroll through the latest.
A Government That Won’t Acknowledge Christianity Can’t Defend the Nation

A Government That Won’t Acknowledge Christianity Can’t Defend the Nation

"By refusing to name its own moral foundations, the state undermines its ability to openly distinguish between belief systems that can coexist within its legal and moral order and those that fundamentally conflict with them. A society that cannot articulate its core moral commitments cannot coherently defend them."
By
by Staff WriterJan 16, 2026
Hate Speech Laws Are Just Blasphemy Laws

Hate Speech Laws Are Just Blasphemy Laws

"Blasphemy laws protect a society’s sacred object from verbal violation. Hate speech laws do the same, only the sacred object has changed. They are secularism’s answer to blasphemy law: enforcing reverence for the system’s ultimate values while denying that those values are religious at all."
By
by Staff WriterJan 15, 2026
Opposition Grows to Labor’s “Horrendous” Hate Speech Bill: “Worst Assault on Freedom Yet”

Opposition Grows to Labor’s “Horrendous” Hate Speech Bill: “Worst Assault on Freedom Yet”

Opposition to the federal government’s Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 is mounting across multiple parties, with MPs and senators warning that the rushed, broadly worded legislation threatens free speech, religious freedom and civil liberties while failing to address the causes of extremism.
By
by Staff WriterJan 15, 2026
Democrats Want Trump’s War Powers Limited Over a War With Venezuela That Doesn’t Exist

Democrats Want Trump’s War Powers Limited Over a War With Venezuela That Doesn’t Exist

“This Vote greatly hampers American self-defence and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief,” Trump wrote.
By
by Rod LampardJan 14, 2026
True Leaders Inspire Unity, Weak Men Legislate It

True Leaders Inspire Unity, Weak Men Legislate It

"Heavy-handed laws, by contrast, are a symptom of weakness—a last resort when authority has decayed, and coercion is all that remains."
By
by Staff WriterJan 13, 2026
Australians Sound Alarm Over New Draconian “Hate” Bill

Australians Sound Alarm Over New Draconian “Hate” Bill

"The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has allowed less than 48 hours for public submissions on the 144-page draft bill."
By
by Staff WriterJan 13, 2026
Hate Speech Laws Are an Admission of Government Failure

Hate Speech Laws Are an Admission of Government Failure

"Hate speech laws are evidence that our governments can no longer inspire loyalty, trust, or solidarity. They are an admission that policymakers have no unifying vision capable of bringing diverse people together voluntarily. So instead, they use force."
By
by Ben DavisJan 13, 2026
UK Leads Talks With Canada and Australia on Potential X Ban

UK Leads Talks With Canada and Australia on Potential X Ban

"Free communication has always posed a problem for those who seek to centralise authority. Open platforms like X allow claims to be challenged, narratives to be contested, and power to be scrutinised. That is precisely why they become targets when governments feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, or threatened."
By
by Staff WriterJan 12, 2026

Image

Support

If you value our work and would like to support us, you can do so by visiting our support page. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Visit our search page.

Copyright © 2025, Caldron Pool

Permissions

Everything published at Caldron Pool is protected by copyright and cannot be used and/or duplicated without prior written permission. Links and excerpts with full attribution are permitted. Published articles represent the opinions of the author and may not reflect the views of all contributors at Caldron Pool.

Caldron Pool does not condone the use of violence, threats, or intimidation for political or religious purposes. We strongly advocate for peaceful, respectful, and free communication and open debate without fear of reprisal or punishment.