David MacKinnon is one of the two Applicants in the Federal Court challenge to Trudeau government’s prorogation of Parliament earlier this year.Either the nation-state is a viable form of political organisation, or it is not. There is no third option. It cannot be both the foundation of modern civic order and an outdated remnant to be discarded at the whim of a global managerial class. Its legitimacy must be judged not by the latest political trends, but by its historical roots and lasting importance in safeguarding human freedom, political accountability, and national sovereignty.In this regard, the critique of the nation-state by the globalist left is not just flawed; it is fundamentally invalid from the outset. It is based on a series of ideological assumptions that are themselves disconnected from historical reality. It employs a method Solzhenitsyn once described as a “Soviet-style narrative” — a sanitized, goal-oriented version of history that conceals the brutal truths it aims to dismiss. We are led to believe that the nation-state is a reactionary construct, hastily formed in the wake of global conflicts — a man-made obstacle to cosmopolitan justice and global responsibility.But this is a profound misreading of history.The roots of the modern nation-state are not in the ashes of Nuremberg but in a long, gradual struggle to take political power away from two historically dominant forces: the Church and the wealthy elites. One only needs to recall the crucifixion — both metaphorical and literal — of Jacques de Molay by King Philip IV (le Bel) of France. The suppression of the Knights Templar, whose immense wealth and power threatened the sovereignty of the Crown, is not a mere footnote but a revealing chapter. It marks the early assertion of a new political order — one where the Crown aimed to regain control of the public treasury from foreign, ecclesiastical, and mercenary interests. Therefore, the nation-state did not emerge solely from Enlightenment theories. It was a major shift — a practical necessity driven by a desire for local sovereignty, civic loyalty, and moral responsibility.To undermine the nation-state is, therefore, not merely to tinker with administrative arrangements. It is to erode the foundational structures that made self-government vital to counter a trans-national threat. And if such undermining is undertaken willfully and with malice toward the national interest, then — depending on the facts — it must be named for what it is: sedition, and perhaps even treason.What, then, does this mean in the Canadian context?Canada faces a crisis that is both constitutional and civilizational. Since Pierre Elliott Trudeau's time in office, there has been a focused effort to detach the country from its historical roots. Our heritage — a British parliamentary democracy built by the virtues and sacrifices of settlers and soldiers from Britain, France, and the Celtic nations — has been gradually erased and replaced. In its place, we are offered a reimagining: a republic-in-waiting, modeled after European managerialism or — more recently — an experimental eco-corporate technocracy aligned with globalist agendas.Like it’s mediaeval precedent, this transformation is no random confluence of forces and events. It aligns with a concerted pursuit of foreign influence — what the American Founders once called “external entanglements” — and a betrayal of our historic loyalties and alliances, especially with the Anglosphere and the democratic West. The Canadian polity has not just drifted; it has been intentionally steered toward a post-national state, where multiculturalism — originally framed as tolerance and hospitality — now acts more a solvent, initially neutralizing Quebec nationalism and now eroding national cohesion altogether.One must ask, without rancour but with sobriety, whether multiculturalism has served as a kind of ideological Trojan horse — introduced to fragment rather than to enrich, to displace rather than to unite. More ominously, we must consider whether these efforts are coordinated by actors whose aims are inimical to Canada’s interests. Journalists such as Sam Cooper and scholars like Charles Burton have marshalled considerable evidence suggesting the presence of foreign influence operations — most notably from the Chinese Communist Party — within our political and bureaucratic institutions.Their claims are not fringe speculation. They are corroborated by intelligence briefings and parliamentary testimony. The pattern suggests a deliberate effort to draw Canada away from its Western alliances and reduce it to a vassal status — a raw-material appendage, and perhaps a future “North American Hong Kong,” from which China may exert economic and political pressure on the United States.If these charges are valid — and the evidence compels us to take them seriously — then we are not just dealing with a simple mistake or failed policy test. We are facing a political crisis that calls for public accountability. A national inquiry commission, with full prosecutorial powers, must be established. Its investigation must cover current and former members of the Prime Minister’s Office, party strategists, lobbyists, and foreign influence operations. At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of our democratic institutions. Watergate involved a burglary and a cover-up. This situation is far worse. It signifies the capture and weakening of the Canadian state.It must also be stated, contrary to the fabricated mythology circulated by our cultural elites, that Donald Trump is not the cause of this crisis. Whatever one thinks of his character or policies, he operates within a system of checks and balances that — however damaged — still functions.Canada, by contrast, has seen those checks nearly disappear. Parliament has been weakened, its committees silenced, and its questions go unanswered. The structure of representative government has been replaced by rule-by-decree, often justified as “emergency powers.” The current regime operates less like a democratic authority and more like a managerial elite that is unconcerned with electoral mandates or constitutional bounds.Patrick Keeney, in his recent essay on national sovereignty, lays out the philosophical foundations of this crisis.This writer would add the following, more bluntly: We are witnessing not the ordinary churn of democratic life, but its quiet evisceration — carried out with the administrative indifference of a managerial class that no longer feels the need to consult the governed.A nation cannot survive on metrics and mandates alone. Governance requires legitimacy, and legitimacy requires consent. That consent has been eroded — systematically, cynically, and perhaps irreparably.Canada must recover its story. It must reclaim the symbols, histories, and loyalties that gave it form before the rise of this post-national experiment. We must remember that citizenship is not merely a subscription plan, and leadership is not a LinkedIn credential. If we are to endure as a people — not merely as a platform — we must reassert the foundational legitimacy of the nation-state. There is still time. But not much.David MacKinnon is one of the two Applicants in the Federal Court challenge to Trudeau government’s prorogation of Parliament earlier this year.
