Canada is a paradise for delightful myths.

Today, a popular and pleasantly satirical caricature is a land where one unites one to resist the unpopular president’s voice, making Canada the 51st star and striped flag.

To be honest, the uncomfortable truth, Canadians don't want Mark Carney to meet with the technocratic ruler of Canada at Harvard University, the first meeting today, the first time that American ruler Donald Trump has held.

A considerable number of Canadians - still smart in the Liberal Party's remarkable revival last week on election night - will take root in another, who have been talking about erasing the "artificial thread" that separates the two border countries.

Carney insists that Canada’s sovereignty is unnegotiable, but I doubt Trump will continue to yell privately and publicly that his ungrateful northern neighbor, who has been in the United States for too long, would be better off joining it to form a “beautiful country.”

Despite the widespread expression of Canadian nationalism, including boycotting what we make and traveling south of the 49th parallel, Trump has every reason to pursue his hot dreams for the swollen empire.

The fact that Carney and the company are reluctant to admit is that in most parts of Canada, the idea of ​​joining the United States is not as radioactive as it should be.

Proof is in the poll.

A recent survey showed that apparently 18% of Conservative voters were eager to exchange Canada O to spark a sensation in the starry flag.

Let's stop and consider the shocking meaning of this dream sentence.

Many of the modern ideological descendants of the John A Macdonald party – one of Canada’s founding fathers, as well as drunks and racists – were content to trade as Canadian citizenship to declare their oath of office in the United States.

This striking story becomes even more shocking to the west of your adventure.

According to the same poll, 21% of Alberta's capital said "yes" because it was absorbed by Trump's ugly, disfigured American vision, in which cruelty and fighting spirit are defined as the spirit of control.

This is not Petering, an irrelevant sovereign movement that Canada has sometimes traumatized Canada since the late 1950s. It's not Quebec nationalists who cover up and claim their identity, language and cultural survival.

No, it's a loud and disturbing man in the West - a complaint of permanent anger, isolation and decades of nursing - not only flirted with separation, but also seemed to be for annexation.

For Canadian cockkey slutty bookmakers, Trump represents the redemption of myopic politicians in Ottawa, a bond exercised in post-election post-election elections in Ontario and Quebec.

In this stubborn context, Trump’s vulgar design is seen as an opportunity rather than a threat.

His passionate image of the United States, his love of deregulation, muscle independence, and his refusal to every suffocating graduality resonated with many Canadian conservatives who felt abandoned by politicians who were more interested in the "wake" system in Toronto, Montreal and beyond the "wake" of the city.

Trump's flammable remarks are expressed in the language of "injustice" and "excellentism" and are disgusting with the attitude of the "globalist elite" - calling for the depletion of the alliance state of more and more Canadians.

The president's provocation - amplified by social media and sympathetic "alternative" news media - reinforces the perception that Canadian federalism is "breaking" and that this power - that is not listened.

In this corrosive climate, the defeated conservative leader Pierre Poilievre must ultimately ignore his role in promoting narrative, which is based on alienation and dysfunction, deepens division and erodes trust in public institutions.

In his narrow-minded pursuit of power, Poilievre devalued the country he was trying to lead, responding to — often almost verbatim — Trump’s boiling and polarizing sensation.

The cynical effort of the U.S. president to undermine the independence of his former allies was taught by a politician who longed to declare Canada's collapse from within again and again.

The horrible, unexpected consequences are becoming obvious now.

Like all instigators, Trump is good at sniffing vulnerabilities and weaknesses. Although most Canadians remain loyal to maple leaves and offended their core by litigation for their oak fights, the cracks are still showing.

Foreseeable, Trump is exploiting them with the threat of performance and his furry smile.

Although she will dismiss the title, Alberta Prime Minister Danielle Smith is the patron saint of cowardly separatists in the province through words and actions.

Smith's Alberta Sovereignty Act is not a benign claim on provincial rights.

Actually, this is announced by Alberta, Sotto Voce: “We will choose which laws we follow.”

This is a blatant rejection of the federal system and an insult to the Constitution itself.

Smith's broad game condemns the betrayal and control in the Central region, which is similar to Trump's harmful method of committing crimes.

It's not about building pipelines or cutting taxes. It's about inciting Alberta-Victim a sense of embellishing citizens to see Canada as home, but an indomitable strait.

It's Trumpism in oil-dyeed cowboy boots.

A coalition of national leaders - along Canada's narrow political sphere - must take Western animation's dissatisfaction seriously.

This means accepting compromise and wholesale commitments, and always subtle solidarity with Canada cannot be taken for granted.

If the curse of alienation spreads, if more and more Westerners see themselves as outsiders of their own country, then absurdity will be imaginable.

Maybe it's not annexation, but a division. Therefore, the concept of Canada as a coherent, inclusive country will soon be threatened.

Trump’s harmful prescription is not only a gateway to an uncertain future, but also poses an existing danger. Canada is facing distant and imaginable risks, not explosions, but through invitations.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own views and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.