What do you think?
Rate this book
On Treason: Alberta Separatism, Foreign Interference, and Canada's Survival in a Revolutionary Age
“What is happening here in Alberta is an aberration. It does not resemble, in any fashion, democratic politics as normal in Canada. For the last ten years Canadians have watched these forces play out in the United States. But now these same forces have arrived here, within our own country. They are threatening to tear us asunder at the precise moment when we are most vulnerable, at the precise moment when our national unity is most paramount. This is not a coincidence.”—from On Treason
Born of fraud and the COVID-19 pandemic, the Alberta separatist movement and its enablers in the quasi-separatist United Conservative Party are engaged in treason against the Canadian people. They wear the obscuring masks of grievance, but behind those masks are the faces of traitors. On Treason reveals those faces to be a gaggle of hucksters, conmen, and megalomaniacal politicians who are enabling our enemies to loosen through disinformation, covert and overt interference (and possibly worse) our will to self-determination as a nation.
Born of fraud and the COVID-19 pandemic, the Alberta separatist movement and its enablers in the quasi-separatist United Conservative Party are engaged in treason against the Canadian people. They wear the obscuring masks of grievance, but behind those masks are the faces of traitors. On Treason reveals those faces to be a gaggle of hucksters, conmen, and megalomaniacal politicians who are enabling our enemies to loosen through disinformation, covert and overt interference (and possibly worse) our will to self-determination as a nation.
264 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 29, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
October 11, 2026
This book is insightful insofar as it presents concisely, accurately and chronologically the genesis of the current Alberta secessionist movement as well as the shady characters involved, the American-backed initiatives, and the general law regarding secession. However, it has many problems in framing and argumentation. Patrick Lennox is a liberal idealist, that is someone who believes in the philosophy of liberalism (not merely support for the Liberal Party of Canada) and that it is ideas that move the world. He believes in reified concepts and is offended when mechanisms enabled by liberalism differ from his visions. It is also clear that Lennox does not know what he is talking about when it comes to other separatist movements in the world, only indifferently using them when it relates to one specific point (that Russia probably has money in the online aspect of the separatist movement. He ignores separatist movements (Kosovo, Chechnya, Montenegro, South Sudan, Taiwan, etc) that would break his thesis that only authoritarian right-wing states support it. For him once you’ve seen one separatist movement you’ve seen them all. Lennox is also a (former) cop [or, "Intelligence Specialist and Manager" in the RCMP for 7 years]
The book is only 193 pages (excluding contents and acknowledgements) and is divided into ten 15-20 paged chapters, with chapters collected into 3 sections.
Lennox starts with his legal basis on understanding separation and on treason. Then on the actual shady history of the current moment, the actors in it, and their politics. This section is the only part of value in this book. The third section is just more of his liberalism. Lennox writes that the Clarity Act (2000), which is about separation, "is anchored [logically] in status quo concepts of the rule of law prevailing; of our constitution holding firm; of peace, order, and good government holding sway through all of this; and in the increasingly contestable belief that our democratic processes and our cognitive sovereignty are in fact our own and not subject to destabilizing, disorienting, and ultimately debilitating forms of foreign interference..." (p. 11). This is an illustrative example of Lennox's liberalism idealism. He is a victim of historical amnesia. The Act was passed a decade since the end of the Cold War, where for over 40 years ideas of "destabilizing, disorienting, and ultimately debilitating forms of foreign [communist] interference" was a prevalent fear in both the general public and in the echelons of power. Lennox sweeps this by declaring that it was the “end of history” in 2000. Even if that was the case, after 2001 this fairytale wouldn’t stand. The only logic anchoring the Clarity Act is that any illegal secession could be dealt with by force from domestic forces or allies, be it the Red Power movement or the Québécois. The change between then and now would be only on the possibility of Canada's closest ally (the United States, better described as Canada's suzerain) losing sight of the value of indirect rule but not on the notion that lawmakers couldn't imagine a disorienting world or foreign interference. Scant is Lennox willing to acknowledge history past 2010 in this text.
Lennox does correctly breakdown clichés of "Western alienation" (such as Equalization payments) and identifying that grievances said to be of the entire west are primarily those of certain [American-owned] extractive industries. Though Lennox steps on himself in presenting information as if "Western alienation" is legit and pleading the reader not to draw a link between the grievances promoted by certain extractive industries with those made after 2022! Lennox's further analysis, despite the evidence he provides himself, ignores social forces that shape the Alberta separatist movement. He frames it almost entirely within a few groups, a few individuals, that simply exist and act for antidemocratic reasons. Their motives and movements start and end with antidemocracy, or certain ideas of democracy as Lennox makes it clear that he believes "direct democracy" to be bad. Multiple times throughout the book is in praising a non-existent version of representative democracy against his bastard idea of “direct democracy”. Lennox’s conception of direct democracy is that of a plebiscite. This is incredibly disingenuous. Any student of the history of direct democracy would be able to tell Lennox that the "direct" part of "direct democracy" isn't that people directly vote on a matter but that people directly discuss, debate, propose, and vote on a matter. Lennox decries that direct democracy enables extremists (extremists for Lennox) while research, such as those on Citizens’ Assemblies, demonstrates over and over again that they have the opposite effect. Lennox is scared of looking into research on particular subjects. He writes about the threat of letting mobs vote on matter and not the legislative assembly deciding on matters while also claiming that the separatists will lose the vote by a large margin. He also ignores that it was his beloved representative democracy that enabled the power grab by the United Conservative Party. Lennox is very careful with what he focuses on lest the reader discover his ideological framing is full of shit. Lennox also commits the fatal error of proscribing TOO MUCH democracy, exploited by Hitler, that led to the Nazi regime. He argues this not from an analysis of the historical period but from of Karl Popper’s moronic “paradox of tolerance” (pp. 16-17). Lennox’s avowed antifascism is muted by this line he writes with his full chest, “Those [who?] that seek the state’s destruction [how?] and[!] the subjugation of its [who’s?] people to tyranny are not entitled [!] to the full slate of its freedoms” (p. 17). For Lennox, the “freedoms” are not a right but a privileged that can be taken away by whim of the state. It is, of course, the state that decides what “destruction” and “tyranny” means. Lennox, former cop, sees no issue with this. “You can’t establish a neo-Nazi party in Germany…” Lennox ignores the current neo-Nazi party in Germany that holds 151 seats in the Bundestag. Now I shouldn’t give the impression that Lennox hasn’t thought this through, he has as he writes that such systems should avoid “overshooting”, that there exists a “certain balance”. What is this balance? Lennox doesn’t say, or doesn’t say with any precision. He writes that the line is treason. Now the other part of the first section discusses the notion of treason but in Canadian law and generally. Which is fine and insightful in the case of the aforementioned law. But Lennox, in his piggish thinking, can’t stop himself from saying that you “owe allegiance” to a state (p. 18)! For Lennox, it’s all within the state, nothing outside the state and especially nothing against the state! Lennox’s solution to combat fascism is to become a fascist (but with the correct socially liberal views).
He does represent the Supreme’s Court ruling regarding Québec in an insightful manner. The substance of the anti-separatism stance as a principle being linked with the material reality of the interconnectedness of the country. Perhaps he should have focused on that a lot more. Though like the Justices, he works backwards throughout the book. Believing that ideas are the force driving history and current affairs. If only we had the correct ideas!
He is hypocritical in many instances. He derides the right “stealing” the tactics of the left (such as blockades) but then argues it was correct for the government to issue the Emergency Act because the blockades brought by the right-wing convoys out of economic security. He lambasts the UCP Alberta government for threatening to use force against Indigenous communities if they blockade what the government declares to be critical infrastructure. He is incapable of seeing past his nose? No, Lennox is trying to get left-wingers to identify with liberal governments in spite of themselves. Lennox also utilizes Indigenous people as a prop. Glowing when Indigenous communities are against separation but silent and minimizing when federal crimes against Indigenous communities are subject (the classic “dark chapter, let’s move on and reconcile”). With his own understanding of the right to unilateral secession under international law, Indigenous communities would be more than within their rights to cede, I wonder if Lennox would support that or if he can give insight into the atmosphere within his Alberta RCMP headquarters during the 2020 Indigenous-led blockades were occurring. Lennox affirms and promotes the idea of “nation-states” while a nation-state is an anti-democratic and anti-representative form of statecraft. It inherently divides citizens and non-citizens, those who “belong” and those who “don’t” and only allows power to be held by that inner group despite the make-up of the land on the ground. It it this ideology that allows to fester notions of “albertan values” that Lennox decries against. His own liberalism lays the foundation for the ideological catalyst of separatism. It is not, however, the cause of it. Lennox focuses material for idea and so in blinded by the process of capital concentration occurring within the past decade in the US. This leads him to believe that American support for annexation or separation is only a Trumpian GOP tenet while it is not. Let it not be forgotten that democrats (such as Gavin) have stated that they wouldn’t remove the Trump tariffs. Biden didn’t remove previous Trump tariffs either.
If a reader wishes to learn about the current day moment of the Alberta separatist movement, through a game of mere actors, the middle portion of the book (the second section) is a good read. It at least provides a base to move from. The rest of the text is dog shit.
The book is only 193 pages (excluding contents and acknowledgements) and is divided into ten 15-20 paged chapters, with chapters collected into 3 sections.
Lennox starts with his legal basis on understanding separation and on treason. Then on the actual shady history of the current moment, the actors in it, and their politics. This section is the only part of value in this book. The third section is just more of his liberalism. Lennox writes that the Clarity Act (2000), which is about separation, "is anchored [logically] in status quo concepts of the rule of law prevailing; of our constitution holding firm; of peace, order, and good government holding sway through all of this; and in the increasingly contestable belief that our democratic processes and our cognitive sovereignty are in fact our own and not subject to destabilizing, disorienting, and ultimately debilitating forms of foreign interference..." (p. 11). This is an illustrative example of Lennox's liberalism idealism. He is a victim of historical amnesia. The Act was passed a decade since the end of the Cold War, where for over 40 years ideas of "destabilizing, disorienting, and ultimately debilitating forms of foreign [communist] interference" was a prevalent fear in both the general public and in the echelons of power. Lennox sweeps this by declaring that it was the “end of history” in 2000. Even if that was the case, after 2001 this fairytale wouldn’t stand. The only logic anchoring the Clarity Act is that any illegal secession could be dealt with by force from domestic forces or allies, be it the Red Power movement or the Québécois. The change between then and now would be only on the possibility of Canada's closest ally (the United States, better described as Canada's suzerain) losing sight of the value of indirect rule but not on the notion that lawmakers couldn't imagine a disorienting world or foreign interference. Scant is Lennox willing to acknowledge history past 2010 in this text.
Lennox does correctly breakdown clichés of "Western alienation" (such as Equalization payments) and identifying that grievances said to be of the entire west are primarily those of certain [American-owned] extractive industries. Though Lennox steps on himself in presenting information as if "Western alienation" is legit and pleading the reader not to draw a link between the grievances promoted by certain extractive industries with those made after 2022! Lennox's further analysis, despite the evidence he provides himself, ignores social forces that shape the Alberta separatist movement. He frames it almost entirely within a few groups, a few individuals, that simply exist and act for antidemocratic reasons. Their motives and movements start and end with antidemocracy, or certain ideas of democracy as Lennox makes it clear that he believes "direct democracy" to be bad. Multiple times throughout the book is in praising a non-existent version of representative democracy against his bastard idea of “direct democracy”. Lennox’s conception of direct democracy is that of a plebiscite. This is incredibly disingenuous. Any student of the history of direct democracy would be able to tell Lennox that the "direct" part of "direct democracy" isn't that people directly vote on a matter but that people directly discuss, debate, propose, and vote on a matter. Lennox decries that direct democracy enables extremists (extremists for Lennox) while research, such as those on Citizens’ Assemblies, demonstrates over and over again that they have the opposite effect. Lennox is scared of looking into research on particular subjects. He writes about the threat of letting mobs vote on matter and not the legislative assembly deciding on matters while also claiming that the separatists will lose the vote by a large margin. He also ignores that it was his beloved representative democracy that enabled the power grab by the United Conservative Party. Lennox is very careful with what he focuses on lest the reader discover his ideological framing is full of shit. Lennox also commits the fatal error of proscribing TOO MUCH democracy, exploited by Hitler, that led to the Nazi regime. He argues this not from an analysis of the historical period but from of Karl Popper’s moronic “paradox of tolerance” (pp. 16-17). Lennox’s avowed antifascism is muted by this line he writes with his full chest, “Those [who?] that seek the state’s destruction [how?] and[!] the subjugation of its [who’s?] people to tyranny are not entitled [!] to the full slate of its freedoms” (p. 17). For Lennox, the “freedoms” are not a right but a privileged that can be taken away by whim of the state. It is, of course, the state that decides what “destruction” and “tyranny” means. Lennox, former cop, sees no issue with this. “You can’t establish a neo-Nazi party in Germany…” Lennox ignores the current neo-Nazi party in Germany that holds 151 seats in the Bundestag. Now I shouldn’t give the impression that Lennox hasn’t thought this through, he has as he writes that such systems should avoid “overshooting”, that there exists a “certain balance”. What is this balance? Lennox doesn’t say, or doesn’t say with any precision. He writes that the line is treason. Now the other part of the first section discusses the notion of treason but in Canadian law and generally. Which is fine and insightful in the case of the aforementioned law. But Lennox, in his piggish thinking, can’t stop himself from saying that you “owe allegiance” to a state (p. 18)! For Lennox, it’s all within the state, nothing outside the state and especially nothing against the state! Lennox’s solution to combat fascism is to become a fascist (but with the correct socially liberal views).
He does represent the Supreme’s Court ruling regarding Québec in an insightful manner. The substance of the anti-separatism stance as a principle being linked with the material reality of the interconnectedness of the country. Perhaps he should have focused on that a lot more. Though like the Justices, he works backwards throughout the book. Believing that ideas are the force driving history and current affairs. If only we had the correct ideas!
He is hypocritical in many instances. He derides the right “stealing” the tactics of the left (such as blockades) but then argues it was correct for the government to issue the Emergency Act because the blockades brought by the right-wing convoys out of economic security. He lambasts the UCP Alberta government for threatening to use force against Indigenous communities if they blockade what the government declares to be critical infrastructure. He is incapable of seeing past his nose? No, Lennox is trying to get left-wingers to identify with liberal governments in spite of themselves. Lennox also utilizes Indigenous people as a prop. Glowing when Indigenous communities are against separation but silent and minimizing when federal crimes against Indigenous communities are subject (the classic “dark chapter, let’s move on and reconcile”). With his own understanding of the right to unilateral secession under international law, Indigenous communities would be more than within their rights to cede, I wonder if Lennox would support that or if he can give insight into the atmosphere within his Alberta RCMP headquarters during the 2020 Indigenous-led blockades were occurring. Lennox affirms and promotes the idea of “nation-states” while a nation-state is an anti-democratic and anti-representative form of statecraft. It inherently divides citizens and non-citizens, those who “belong” and those who “don’t” and only allows power to be held by that inner group despite the make-up of the land on the ground. It it this ideology that allows to fester notions of “albertan values” that Lennox decries against. His own liberalism lays the foundation for the ideological catalyst of separatism. It is not, however, the cause of it. Lennox focuses material for idea and so in blinded by the process of capital concentration occurring within the past decade in the US. This leads him to believe that American support for annexation or separation is only a Trumpian GOP tenet while it is not. Let it not be forgotten that democrats (such as Gavin) have stated that they wouldn’t remove the Trump tariffs. Biden didn’t remove previous Trump tariffs either.
If a reader wishes to learn about the current day moment of the Alberta separatist movement, through a game of mere actors, the middle portion of the book (the second section) is a good read. It at least provides a base to move from. The rest of the text is dog shit.
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
Timely, extremely well researched, and puts together a sequence of disparate events into a cohesive whole that shows the extent of the political crisis we face in this country at the moment. This book is extremely helpful for understanding how we got here with the Alberta referendum, and why the rest of Canada needs to wake up as to the danger we are in from malign global forces that too many people are closing their eyes to.
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
Excellently researched and presented. A MUST READ!
October 8, 2026
The ULTIMATE source for understanding the entire background leading to the Alberta referendums attacking: immigration (a COMPLETE 180° switch from the premier's stance of 2024), constitutional alterations (not possible in isolation), and the decision to explore SEPERATION from Canada (as the US salivates greedily after Alberta natural resources)!
Be introduced to the UNELECTED, NON-POLITICALLY UNAFFILIATED cast of puppeteers choreographing the movements of our premier through this entire mess.
TEN referendum questions are put to voting Alberta citizens - how, if ever, will this end ... where could this lead ...
Thank you to Patrick Lennox for bringing this to us at this critical time.
Be introduced to the UNELECTED, NON-POLITICALLY UNAFFILIATED cast of puppeteers choreographing the movements of our premier through this entire mess.
TEN referendum questions are put to voting Alberta citizens - how, if ever, will this end ... where could this lead ...
Thank you to Patrick Lennox for bringing this to us at this critical time.
October 10, 2026
Essential reading for our times. What’s about to happen in Alberta is treasonous, illegal, and unconstitutional. It will potentially unleash more chaos and division that Trump et al will use as a pretext.
Canada is worth defending.
Res this book
Canada is worth defending.
Res this book
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews