The rise of conservatism among youth is an ambivalent phenomenon. On the one hand, it indicates that new generations are beginning to grow tired of liberal artificiality, of postmodern nihilism, of the consumerist void that Western modernity imposes on them. This turn toward traditional values, identity, roots, and order is not negative in itself: it expresses an instinct for spiritual survival in the face of the total dissolution proposed by globalist liberalism.
But there is a danger: when that “conservatism” is nothing more than a recycled mask of the same Anglo-Saxon liberalism. That is, a Yankee conservatism, designed and exported as ideological merchandise, which in reality liberates no one, but once again chains souls to the unipolar hegemony of the United States. That is not Tradition, that is yet another pantomime manufactured in Hollywood.
True multipolarity does not need a conservatism of “Fox News” or of political celebrities on social media spitting out the same discourse and lifestyle of neoliberals disguised as moral guardians. What the future of civilization needs is for each people to regenerate its own forms, to turn its head toward its own heritage, free from all influence of the modern world. It is there that authentic conservatism arises, one tied to the sacred and not to the market.
At the same time, it is not enough to embrace tradition as a museum of static symbols. In a system contaminated by liberalism and mercantile hegemony, revolution is also necessary, profound change, radical dissidence from within. True tradition is not passivity: it is a living principle that demands the destruction of the false in order to make room for the authentic. Without that volcanic force that breaks apart the rotting structures, conservatism runs the risk of becoming a comfortable refuge, domesticated by the very system it claims to reject. Youth must learn that the defense of the eternal requires, at the same time, the courage to dynamite what is decayed.
However, this youth must understand something essential: the need to have its own voice. A voice that does not simply repeat imported slogans, nor disguise with patriotic symbols the formulas of conservatism made in the USA. Yankee propaganda and infiltration are masters of camouflage, of seducing with discourses that seem to speak of tradition and freedom, but which in the end are only new chains of cultural dependency.
If youth does not forge a discourse rooted in the unique heritage of each people, in their historical memory, in their pain and in their greatness, what will emerge will be a grotesque imitation: a “conservative international” that, instead of opposing globalism, reproduces it with different colors. There would be no real difference between the red flag of liberal progressivism and the blue flag of neoliberal conservatism; both would be subject to the same imperial logic, both would be different masks of the same system of hegemony.
Youth, then, must break with that illusion and assume the task of creating, from within their historical and cultural contexts, an insurgent and sovereign thought that does not copy but resonates with the unique voice of their civilization. Only then does conservatism become authentic, only then can it join multipolarity as a creative force and not as yet another shadow of unipolarity.
Therefore, compatibility with multipolarity depends on the root: if young people cling to American conservatism, they remain colonized. If they seek their own conservatism, the one that springs from their myths, their history, and their religion, then it does become a force of resistance against unipolarity and an affirmation of a truly plural world. And only in this way does that struggle to preserve their tradition become pure—pure enough to dedicate an entire life to that struggle.
