Politics has always tempted people to excuse behavior they would otherwise condemn — provided it comes from their own side. It's as old as tribe itself. The Bible describes this pattern plainly.
"How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? … They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken."
"You shall not follow a crowd to do evil."
History is unsentimental about this dynamic. Movements rarely collapse because their enemies defeat them. They collapse because they abandon internal discipline. They mistake loyalty for virtue. And slowly, they lose the ability to tell the difference between principle and impulse.
The real danger isn't that our opponents have extremists. The danger is when we decide ours don't matter.
That is the line between a political philosophy and a tribe. Tribes shout and fracture. Truth endures — quietly, stubbornly, and longer than any faction.
Minneapolis Wasn't a Fluke
On January 17, 2026, Jake Lang organized what he called a "March Against Minnesota Fraud" in Minneapolis. The title gestured vaguely toward election integrity and immigration — serious issues that are diminished, not advanced, by spectacle.
What followed was not serious. According to reporting, Lang and a small group planned to burn a Quran on the steps of City Hall, then march into predominantly Somali neighborhoods. Hundreds of counter-protesters arrived. Violence followed. Lang later appeared bruised and bloodied, claimed injuries police did not substantiate, and fled the scene in a stranger's vehicle.
Let's clear something off the table immediately: violence against political speech is wrong. Full stop. A free society does not get to protect only the speech it finds tasteful.
But rights are not endorsements. And legality is not wisdom. A man has the right to torch his own reputation. The rest of us are under no obligation to hold the match — or to pretend this advances anything beyond chaos.
Conservatism Is Not an Emotional Support Group
Conservatism, at least as it has historically understood itself, is not an emotional support group. It is an intellectual tradition. It rests on the unfashionable idea that actions have consequences, that incentives matter, and that restraint is often a virtue.
Which raises a painfully obvious question that too few on the far right seem interested in asking: what is the intended outcome of burning a Quran?
What policy does this advance? What argument does it strengthen? Who is persuaded?
The honest answer — the one everyone senses but avoids stating — is nothing.
No border becomes more secure. No immigration system becomes more functional. No social trust is restored. What is produced, reliably and predictably, is escalation, backlash, and another easy headline confirming that conservatism is driven by spite rather than thought. That isn't bravery. It isn't clarity. And it certainly isn't strategy.
This Didn't Come Out of Nowhere
One bad decision can be dismissed as stupidity. A pattern deserves analysis.
Jake Lang's public record is not an accident. He participated in the January 6 protest and was later accused of striking a law enforcement officer — an allegation reportedly supported by video evidence. He was charged, later pardoned, and has since reinvented himself as a professional provocateur: running for office while organizing rallies that featured Nazi salutes, antisemitic conspiracy theories, racial slurs, and rhetoric so crude it would have embarrassed even earlier generations of extremists.
This is not conservatism. Not remotely. It has nothing to do with Burke's respect for institutions, Hayek's concern for unintended consequences, or the Founders' obsession with balance and restraint. It is tribal politics stripped of discipline — emotion pretending to be principle.
The remaining sections — on the rhetorical pipeline, ICE and political reality, the Buckley precedent, and the final argument for intellectual hygiene — are available to subscribers.
Subscribe · $8 / Month