It's not a complete definition but he is right that conservatism is completely incompatible with universalism.
This is a little confusing in the US and other Anglo countries because traditionally we have been fairly liberal so sometimes people confuse liberalism and conservatism.
In the Anglo countries, what is being “conserved” is the liberal universalist tradition of the Enlightenment, and what is being “progressed” is a power- and identity-centered postmodernism.
Don’t get this confused with conservative and progressive politicians, though, who are generally ignorant of the actual traditions and philosophies behind their respective movements, and are essentially just cutouts for competing media and financial corporate interests. The few holdouts on both sides have been successfully sidelined (Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul), and it looks like the military-industrial complex will have their war with Iran no matter what the results of the next few elections are.
(Sorry, I’ll go have my coffee now and see if I get a little less doomer.)
You're going to need to provide a source for the definitions you're using for "conservatism", "liberalism" and "universalism".
Without those, your comment is difficult to make any sense of, since the way you're using those words seems to differ from any sort of standardized definition.
I think we can both agree that for example liberalism and Islam are incompatible. So if you want to conserve liberalism you'll have to exclude Muslims. That's not universalist -> liberalism and universalism are incompatible.
This is a little confusing in the US and other Anglo countries because traditionally we have been fairly liberal so sometimes people confuse liberalism and conservatism.