[watwut]

To me, all historic associations with goal of "strong people" have "conquest and domination" attached to it as real goal.

In that context, it makes sense for it to be opposed to diversity. Just part of it stays unsaid.

And thinking about it, "strong values" tend to imply conservative. People don't say that about radical social justice proponents doing sacrifices for their cause. Nor about LGBT couple deeply faithful and in love. It gotta be religious to be called that.

[PKop]

If historically strength means conquest and domination, weakness must mean being conquered and dominated yes?

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".. this is observably true throughout history no?

In that case, why would a people/nation not want to be strong? Why would they not do what they can to ensure they are not conquered?

>"strong values" tend to imply conservative

Exactly. Then what is the appeal of not-strong values? How are these to be sold to people that don't want to be run over by the strong?

>People don't say that about radical social justice proponents doing sacrifices for their cause

Perhaps because they don't make the nation strong?

>it makes sense for it to be opposed to diversity.

Does being opposed to diversity enable your nation to be the conqueror or the conquered?

"in that context"... the context to which you agree is historically true?

[watwut]

> If historically strength means conquest and domination, weakness must mean being conquered and dominated yes?

No politician or populist ever promised to "build the nation of weak people". That just does not exists.

> "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".. this is observably true throughout history no?

Not really, no. That is expression of spefic ideology in which might is right and no other moral values apply. It is not accurate description of human behavior in either large or small scale. It happens with ideologies like Nazism, sure, but they are not all that ever existed.

> Exactly. Then what is the appeal of not-strong values? How are these to be sold to people that don't want to be run over by the strong?

There is no such thing as someone promoting "not-strong values". Such rhetorical point does not happen to be used

You are confusing propaganda and euphemism with real thing. The "strong values" is slogan, euphemism or propaganda, take your pick. Nothing to do with actual strength or actual values.

> Does being opposed to diversity enable your nation to be the conqueror or the conquered? "in that context"... the context to which you agree is historically true?

Neither of those. Simple, the political groups being opposed to diversity are the ones who currently happen to be close to movements that in fact want to dominate other nations or races.

It does not have to be like that, other combinations could happen. But currently, things are aligned this way.