Why would you think I was speaking in reference to individuals rather than state

Why would you think I was speaking in reference to individuals rather than states? How did you make that leap?

The US is visibly sovereign by every measure, but if you mean are citizens sovereign, they are more so in the USA than elsewhere, but are they sovereign in the pure and complete sense – then no.

I know these subjects are emotionally loaded and conservatives are right to be emotionally activated, but I’m not (and Martin is not) a trivial thinker. It is better to ask questions when you object than to exhort accusations, because while I might lack sufficient clarity at times due to practical brevity, I’m not wrong very often – it’s more likely that your interpretation is.

My difference from martin is caused by my frequent conflation of multiple issues that I often falsely assume are obvious: the natural law, the natural law reforms necessary for the anglosphere, and the natural law reforms that would be helpful for any and all of mankind. In my mind I think this is obvious but it’s not.

So, as martin and I frequently state (and which I find extraordinary value) is that I”m cleary from an anglo naval background and hold that optimism (higher risk tolerance) because of it, while Martin is from a small continental background that holds pessimism (lower risk tolerance). In effect the natural law is the same, but each polity still needs to develop a strategy that suits its circumstances.

To some degree this applies to you. I’m at the latter end of a long life of relative success and prosperity despite treating occupations as a means of funding my avocation. You are perhaps not to fortunate in your life as I have been in mind. As such my risk tolerance is higher than yours. This means you are acting correctly ust as martin is acting correctly, and I am acting correctly because of my and my country’s risk tolerance.

Cheers