"We see the tradition of independent, self-governed nations as the foundation for restoring a proper public orientation toward patriotism and courage, honor and loyalty..."

"... religion and wisdom, congregation and family, man and woman, the sabbath and the sacred, and reason and justice. We are conservatives because we see such virtues as essential to sustaining our civilization. We see such a restoration as the prerequisite for recovering and maintaining our freedom, security, and prosperity. We emphasize the idea of the nation because we see a world of independent nations—each pursuing its own national interests and upholding national traditions that are its own—as the only genuine alternative to universalist ideologies now seeking to impose a homogenizing, locality-destroying imperium over the entire globe...."

 
That's from "National Conservatism: A Statement Of Principles/A world of independent nations is the only alternative to universalist ideologies seeking to impose a homogenizing, locality-destroying imperium over the entire globe" by The Edmund Burke Foundation (published at The American Conservative). 

I found that through "Beware of ‘national conservatives’ who dispense with American ideals" by Henry Olsen, at The Washington Post. He begins...

There’s a lot to like about the burgeoning “national conservative” movement, which stands against the increasingly stale, pre-Trump intellectual orthodoxy on the right....

... but quickly switches to criticism. Trump is, of course, awful, so hooray for the alternatives that might lure conservatives away from Trumpism, but any alternative that works will swiftly become the new target. 

What's Olsen's beef? He says, the statement of principles has nothing about "human or natural rights." 

I searched the document for "right" and found only: 1. the idea that each nation has a "right to maintain its own borders and conduct policies that will benefit its own people," and 2. praise for the Bible — the "rightful inheritance of believers and non-believers alike" — for its "recognition of things rightly regarded as sacred." 

But there are many references to rights. For one thing, as students of the American Constitution knows, the structures of limited government and separation of powers are supposed to operate to protect the liberty of individuals, and the document says:

We recommend a drastic reduction in the scope of the administrative state and the policy-making judiciary that displace legislatures representing the full range of a nation’s interests and values. We recommend the federalist principle, which prescribes a delegation of power to the respective states or subdivisions of the nation so as to allow greater variation, experimentation, and freedom. However, in those states or subdivisions in which law and justice have been manifestly corrupted, or in which lawlessness, immorality, and dissolution reign, national government must intervene energetically to restore order.

The right to freedom of religion — though not separation of religion and government — is stressed: 

Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private. At the same time, Jews and other religious minorities are to be protected in the observance of their own traditions, in the free governance of their communal institutions, and in all matters pertaining to the rearing and education of their children. Adult individuals should be protected from religious or ideological coercion in their private lives and in their homes.

The statement of principles highlights economic freedom:

We believe that an economy based on private property and free enterprise is best suited to promoting the prosperity of the nation and accords with traditions of individual liberty that are central to the Anglo-American political tradition.

But it is openly hostile to liberties that run counter to the institution of the traditional family:

Among the causes [of the disintegration of the family] are an unconstrained individualism that regards children as a burden, while encouraging ever more radical forms of sexual license and experimentation as an alternative to the responsibilities of family and congregational life.

Finally, the statement strongly supports the right to racial equality:

We believe that all men are created in the image of God and that public policy should reflect that fact. No person’s worth or loyalties can be judged by the shape of his features, the color of his skin, or the results of a lab test.... We condemn the use of state and private institutions to discriminate and divide us against one another on the basis of race. The cultural sympathies encouraged by a decent nationalism offer a sound basis for conciliation and unity among diverse communities. The nationalism we espouse respects, and indeed combines, the unique needs of particular minority communities and the common good of the nation as a whole.

But Olsen says that isn't a statement of a belief in equality. He says: 

It contends that “all men are created in the image of God” but says nothing about being created equal. Indeed, though it frequently praises nations and liberty, it never states the basic truth of human equality, which is the starting point for America’s founding principles. This is not an accident.

Olsen doesn't go on to explain why he thinks it's not an accident that the statement never explicitly refers to equality. But it is true that the statement never uses the word "equal" (or "equality"), and that's such an obvious word that we might infer that it would surely have popped up if they were not straining to exclude it.

Perhaps true equality is such an advanced goal that you wouldn't want it in your founding statement. Yes, our Founders put it in the Declaration of Independence, but they weren't anywhere near to making it a reality, and we're still not there. We don't even agree about what equality is. Perhaps a little circumspection is appropriate.