You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Media’ category.
The corrosion of Canadian society is becoming increasingly apparent as disparities in the application of law erode the principles of justice and equality that underpin national cohesion. A telling example is the cancellation of concerts by Sean Feucht—a Christian musician associated with conservative American politics—in cities like Vaughan and Montreal, contrasted with law enforcement’s seemingly permissive stance toward disruptive street protests held by certain Islamist groups. This uneven enforcement of the law not only undermines the rule of law but also stokes populist resentment, creating fertile ground for political polarization.
At the root of this problem lies the influence of critical social constructivism — often expressed through “woke” ideology — which prioritizes identity-based oppression narratives over impartial justice. This essay explores how the disparate treatment of public expression—illustrated by the Feucht case—threatens to fracture Canadian society and how ideological bias within institutions exacerbates the risk.
The Sean Feucht Concert Cancellations
Sean Feucht, known for his conservative Christian beliefs and affiliation with the MAGA movement, faced significant resistance when attempting to host concerts in Canada. In Vaughan, the city revoked his permit for a scheduled event at Dufferin District Park, citing concerns about “health and safety as well as community standards and well-being” (National Post). In Montreal, a church hosting Feucht was fined $2,500 over permit issues, and during the event, a smoke bomb was thrown into the venue—allegedly by Antifa-aligned protestors—yet no arrests followed (CBC News).
Other cancellations occurred in Quebec City and at a Parks Canada site in Nova Scotia, often citing vague concerns about “community standards” or “public safety,” despite no comparable crackdown on ideologically favored events (CBC News; Globe and Mail).
Unequal Application of Law
In contrast to the concert cancellations described earlier, public demonstrations involving Islamic street prayers have been met with a markedly different approach. For example, in March 2025, protesters blocked Toronto’s Yonge and Bloor intersection to perform anti-Israel Islamic prayers. Despite obstructing traffic and complaints from residents, Toronto Police took no enforcement action, citing a need to balance Charter rights and public safety (True North).
Similarly, in Montreal, Quebec Premier François Legault publicly criticized city police for allowing protesters to block streets during Islamic prayers, noting that no fines or charges had been issued across numerous demonstrations. Legault even considered invoking the notwithstanding clause to prohibit such practices outright (The CJN).
Adding to the perception of enforcement bias, journalists covering these protests reported being obstructed or threatened by police. In one instance, Montreal police allegedly told a journalist to “let them pray” while preventing him from filming, yet protesters causing the disruption faced no consequences (Rebel News).
This stark contrast — Christian concerts shut down, yet Islamic street blockages tolerated — reinforces public perception that Canadian authorities selectively apply the law based on ideological alignment.
Legal Framework: Religious Freedom and the Charter
Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that everyone has “freedom of conscience and religion.” This protection applies equally to Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and others. Section 15 of the Charter further guarantees “equality before and under the law” and the “right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.”
However, Section 1 of the Charter allows for “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” This is the legal mechanism by which governments or municipalities may argue that certain forms of expression or assembly—such as large concerts or disruptive protests—can be restricted in specific circumstances.
The problem arises when these limits appear to be enforced inconsistently, not based on objective criteria like safety or legality, but on the perceived ideological or religious affiliation of the participants. When secular authorities use Section 1 to suppress Christian gatherings while allowing disruptive Islamic demonstrations under Section 2(a), it creates the impression that some faiths are politically privileged while others are disfavored. This perception undermines public trust in the legal system and calls into question the neutrality of state institutions.
Societal Fracture
Unequal treatment before the law is a potent catalyst for societal division. When one segment of society perceives that its freedoms are systematically constrained while others are indulged, resentment grows—and with it, the risk of reactionary backlash.
Feucht himself characterized the cancellations as “Christian persecution,” accusing Canadian authorities of suppressing religious expression (CBC News). Whether one agrees or not, such rhetoric resonates with those who feel alienated by mainstream institutions. This kind of alienation feeds populist sentiment, erodes civic trust, and empowers more extreme political actors who promise to right perceived injustices.
Without a return to legal consistency, Canada risks a vicious cycle of grievance and counter-grievance, fueled not by reasoned discourse but by tribal loyalty and ideological recrimination.
The Ideological Engine: Critical Social Constructivism
The ideological root of this unequal application of law lies in critical social constructivism, particularly its contemporary “woke” form. Emerging from postmodern thought, this worldview holds that social reality is constructed through language and power relations, and that justice requires actively correcting historical imbalances.
In practice, this framework often leads to the privileging of marginalized identity groups while casting traditionally dominant groups—especially white, male, Christian, or conservative individuals—as inherently suspect. In the Feucht case, decision-makers may have acted out of a desire to affirm progressive social norms and suppress what they perceive as regressive or harmful speech.
This ideologically motivated asymmetry undermines the foundational liberal principle of equal treatment under the law. By replacing legal neutrality with identity-based adjudication, institutions risk becoming instruments of factionalism rather than guardians of justice.
Conclusion
If Canadian institutions continue to apply the law unevenly, motivated by ideological commitments rather than legal consistency, the resulting erosion of public trust will not remain confined to the political margins. It will spread. For a pluralistic society to function, citizens must believe that laws are applied fairly, regardless of ideology, religion, or identity.
The corrosion of this principle—whether in the name of safety, social progress, or cultural sensitivity—threatens the very cohesion it claims to protect. It is only through a recommitment to impartial justice that Canada can reverse its drift toward ideological tribalism and restore the unity that undergirds a truly free society.
Sources Cited
- National Post. “All six Canadian venues cancel Christian musician Sean Feucht’s shows.” https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/vaughan-cancels-sean-feucht-concert
- CBC News. “Quebec City cancels concert of MAGA musician, following lead of other Canadian cities.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/sean-feucht-concert-montreal-1.7012345
- The Globe and Mail. “MAGA-affiliated American musician faces wave of cancellations on eastern Canadian tour.” https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-maga-affiliated-american-musician-faces-wave-of-cancellations-on/
- CBC News. “Permit revoked for MAGA musician’s concert at Parks Canada site, but show will go on.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/sean-feucht-concert-cancelled-parks-canada-1.7012345
- True North Wire. “Toronto residents upset after Hamas supporters blockade busy intersection.” https://truenorthwire.com/2025/03/toronto-residents-upset-after-hamas-supporters-blockade-busy-intersection/
- The CJN. “Quebec’s premier wants to ban public prayer after protests block traffic and challenge secularism.” https://thecjn.ca/news/quebecs-premier-wants-to-ban-public-prayer-after-protests-block-traffic-and-challenge-secularism/
- Rebel News. “Shocking: Threatened with arrest for covering Islamic public prayers.” https://www.rebelnews.com/shocking_threatened_with_arrest_for_covering_islamic_public_prayers?
- Government of Canada. “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html
In our first post, we defined media narratives as curated stories that shape how we see the world and propaganda as manipulative communication serving hidden agendas. But how are these narratives constructed? Who decides which stories dominate, and why? This second post in our series pulls back the curtain on narrative-building, revealing the deliberate strategies behind the stories we’re told. We’ll explore this through the lens of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Jacques Ellul’s insights on propaganda, and a bold real-world example: the Yes Men’s 2010 BP Bohai media hoax. Buckle up—it’s a masterclass in narrative construction.
The Anatomy of Narrative Construction
A media narrative isn’t an accident; it’s a calculated act of storytelling. At its core, narrative construction involves three steps:
- Selection: Choosing which facts, events, or voices to highlight (and which to ignore).
- Framing: Presenting those elements in a way that suggests a specific interpretation—think “heroic whistleblower” versus “reckless leaker.”
- Amplification: Spreading the narrative through repetition, emotional appeals, or media channels to cement it in the public’s mind.
These steps sound clinical, but they’re wielded with creativity and intent. Philosopher Jean Baudrillard, whom we met last time, might call this the creation of a “simulacrum”—a manufactured reality that feels truer than the truth. Whether it’s a news outlet framing a policy debate or an activist group staging a stunt, narrative-builders know their power lies in controlling the story.
Saul Alinsky’s Playbook for Narrative Control
Saul Alinsky, a legendary community organizer, laid out a blueprint for narrative construction in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals. Written to empower activists, his rules are equally instructive for understanding how media narratives are crafted. Three rules stand out:
- Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Alinsky argued that humor and mockery can discredit opponents and make a narrative stick. A well-placed jab can shift perceptions faster than a dry policy paper.
- Rule 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” Narratives thrive when they’re engaging—think viral memes or dramatic protests that capture attention and inspire sharing.
- Rule 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Alinsky emphasized creating a decision dilemma, where the target faces a lose-lose choice: respond to a provocative narrative and risk amplifying it, or stay silent and let it fester. This traps opponents in a strategic bind, ensuring the narrative gains traction.
Alinsky’s rules aren’t just for activists; they’re used by corporations, governments, and media to shape stories. His focus on emotional resonance, engagement, and strategic dilemmas shows how narratives are planned to cut through noise and leave a lasting impression.
Jacques Ellul: Propaganda and Narratives as Inseparable
French philosopher Jacques Ellul, in his 1965 book Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, argued that in modern literate societies, propaganda and narratives are inseparable. Unlike crude posters or slogans, modern propaganda weaves itself into the fabric of media, education, and culture, shaping beliefs through subtle, pervasive stories. Ellul’s concept of “sociological propaganda” describes how narratives—say, the glorification of consumerism or national exceptionalism—emerge organically from societal structures, aligning public attitudes with institutional goals. In Western media, this means the line between a news narrative and propaganda often blurs: a story about economic growth might subtly reinforce corporate interests, even without overt lies. Ellul’s insight reminds us that narrative construction isn’t just tactical; it’s a systemic force we swim in daily.
The Yes Men and the BP Bohai Hoax: A Narrative in Action
Enter the Yes Men, activist-pranksters who weaponize Alinsky’s principles to expose corporate misdeeds. In 2010, amidst the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, they staged a media fiasco targeting BP’s lesser-known Bohai Bay spill in China. Posing as BP executives, they issued a fake press release announcing BP’s commitment to a massive cleanup fund—complete with a forged website and staged press conference. The media, hungry for a redemption story, initially took the bait, amplifying the hoax before realizing it was satire.
This stunt is a textbook case of narrative construction:
- Selection: The Yes Men chose the Bohai spill, a real but underreported event, to piggyback on the Deepwater Horizon outrage. This gave their fake story plausibility.
- Framing: They framed BP as suddenly contrite, promising billions for cleanup—a stark contrast to BP’s actual cost-cutting image. The absurdity (aligned with Alinsky’s ridicule rule) made the hoax memorable.
- Amplification: By mimicking BP’s branding and exploiting media trust in “official” sources, they ensured the story spread before being debunked. Even after the reveal, the narrative lingered: BP’s negligence was back in the spotlight.
The Yes Men also applied Alinsky’s decision dilemma (Rule 9). BP faced a trap: debunking the hoax drew more attention to their Bohai failures, while ignoring it let the narrative of corporate irresponsibility spread. Either way, the Yes Men’s story won. Their goal wasn’t just to prank; it was to craft a hyperreal narrative, as Baudrillard might say, that exposed corporate spin and forced a real conversation about accountability. Their success lay in understanding how media operates—outlets crave dramatic stories and rarely dig deep before publishing.
What We Learn—and What’s Next
The BP Bohai hoax shows that narratives are built with intent, whether by activists like the Yes Men or media giants. Alinsky’s rules and Ellul’s insights reveal the tactics and systemic forces at play: pick your moment, frame it with emotion, create dilemmas, and weave it into society’s fabric. But this isn’t just about pranks. Every day, Western media selects what to cover, frames it to fit editorial or commercial goals, and amplifies it through headlines and algorithms.
Next time, we’ll apply these lessons to a recent news story, dissecting how its narrative was constructed and what it reveals about media agendas. You’ll leave with practical tools to spot these tactics yourself. For now, ask: What narratives are grabbing my attention, and who’s behind them?
Curious for more? Stay tuned for the final part of this series as we unpack a real-world news cycle and keep chasing the truth together.
In today’s media-saturated world, we’re bombarded with stories. Some inform, others persuade, and many subtly shape how we see reality. But how do we distinguish a harmless news report from a crafted narrative or even propaganda? This is the first post in a series dedicated to equipping you with the tools to identify narratives in Western media—starting with clear definitions of what a media narrative is and what propaganda means, with all its nuances. Let’s dive in, grounded in curiosity and a relentless pursuit of truth.
What Is a Media Narrative?
A media narrative is a cohesive story or framework that media outlets use to present events, issues, or ideas. It’s not just the facts but the way those facts are selected, framed, and connected to create meaning. Narratives give structure to the chaos of information, helping audiences make sense of the world—but they also shape perceptions, often unconsciously.
For example, consider coverage of a protest. One outlet might frame it as “citizens demanding justice,” emphasizing personal stories of grievance. Another might call it “unrest threatening public order,” highlighting property damage. Both may report accurate details, but the framing—the narrative—guides how you feel about the event. Narratives aren’t inherently bad; they’re how humans process complexity. The catch? They’re curated, and that curation reflects editorial choices, biases, or agendas.
Philosopher Jean Baudrillard, in his work Simulacra and Simulation (1981), warned that media can create “hyperreal” versions of reality—representations that feel more real than the truth itself. When a news story repeatedly emphasizes certain details (say, a politician’s gaffe) while ignoring others (their policy record), it crafts a hyperreal narrative that can overshadow reality. Recognizing this is the first step to questioning what you’re being told.
What Is Propaganda? A Nuanced View
Propaganda is a loaded term, often conjuring images of wartime posters or authoritarian regimes. But its reality is more complex, especially in modern Western media. Formally, propaganda is communication designed to manipulate beliefs, emotions, or behaviors to serve a specific agenda. Unlike education, which seeks to inform, or persuasion, which argues openly, propaganda often conceals its intent, prioritizing impact over truth.
However, propaganda isn’t just bald-faced lies. It thrives in half-truths, out-of-context facts, or what Friedrich Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom (1944), might describe as the distortion of truth to serve centralized power or ideology. Hayek argued that control over information—whether by governments or institutions—can erode individual freedom by shaping what people accept as true. Similarly, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, in Manufacturing Consent (1988), revealed how media can serve elite interests by filtering information to align with corporate or political agendas. They described a “propaganda model” where news is shaped through ownership, advertising pressures, and reliance on official sources, subtly nudging public consent toward desired narratives. In media, this might look like:
- Half-Truths: Reporting a politician’s controversial quote without the context that softens or explains it.
- Out-of-Context Truths: Highlighting a single statistic (e.g., crime rates) to push a narrative while ignoring broader trends.
- Marrying Truth to a Lie: Pairing a factual statement with a misleading implication, like suggesting a policy caused an economic dip when other factors were at play.
These tactics don’t fit the cartoonish image of propaganda, but they’re effective because they’re subtle. A news outlet might report a true event but frame it to align with a broader agenda—say, amplifying fear to drive clicks or support a political stance. Baudrillard’s concept of the “precession of simulacra” applies here: the narrative becomes the reality, detached from the original truth.
Propaganda’s nuance lies in its spectrum. A sensational headline might lean propagandistic by exaggerating for attention, while a state-backed disinformation campaign manipulates systematically. Both distort, but their intent and scale differ. Understanding this spectrum empowers you to spot propaganda without dismissing all media as untrustworthy.
Why This Matters—and What’s Next
Media narratives and propaganda shape how we vote, what we fear, and who we trust. Left unchecked, they can distort our grasp of reality, as Baudrillard cautioned, or erode our ability to think independently, as Hayek feared. But by learning to identify these forces, you reclaim agency. You start seeing the strings behind the stories.
In the coming posts, we’ll explore practical tools to dissect Western media narratives—how to spot framing, question sources, and uncover hidden agendas. We’ll draw on real-world examples, from election coverage to social issue reporting, to make these skills tangible. For now, ask yourself: What stories am I being told, and who’s telling them?
Curious to dig deeper? Next time, we’ll break down how narratives are built, using a recent news story as a case study. Stay tuned, and let’s keep chasing the truth together.
Mark Carney’s daughter Sasha, frequently spun by the media as a cherubic “kid” in pigtails, is actually a 24-year-old Yale grad churning out freelance pieces in Brooklyn. Forget the teddy bear; she’s been writing about her non-binary identity and Tavistock Clinic visits since her teens. But why bother with accuracy when you can slap a “kid” label on her? It’s a cute, cuddly way to dodge her real story and keep Carney looking like the wise, protective dad—while hinting he’s all in on the gender ideology train that says identities can be as fluid as his old Bank of England policies.
This isn’t just lazy journalism; it’s a calculated twofer. Infantilizing Sasha strips her of agency—bye-bye, complex debates about her non-binary life or Yale-honed views—and doubles as a dog whistle that Carney’s a card-carrying believer in gender ideology. Why else let the “kid” narrative slide unless he’s nodding along to the idea that biology’s just a suggestion? It’s a slick move: keep her a helpless prop, sidestep the messy adult reality, and signal his progressive cred without him ever saying a word. Meanwhile, the media gets to skip the nuance and bank on us not noticing.
The deceit’s purpose is as clear as Carney’s Goldman Sachs resume: control the story, polish his image. A “kid” Sasha keeps the spotlight on him as the steady patriarch, not some guy whose grown daughter’s out there challenging norms he’s implicitly endorsed. It’s a bonus that this manipulation paints him as a gender ideology ally—perfect for the woke crowd—while the media rakes in clicks from the saccharine family vibe. They’re not clueless; they’re just betting we’ll swallow the sugarcoated lie over the sharper truth of a 24-year-old living their own life.
To unpack the Kamloops unmarked graves story, we need a French philosopher—Jean Baudrillard. He loved poking holes in modernity, especially how culture twists itself around shaky narratives. His big idea, hyperreality, describes a state where the line between reality and representation blurs so much the representation becomes more real—a world of signs pointing to other signs, not facts. It’s a four-stage slide into a simulation that outshines truth. Let’s see how Kamloops fits.
The Four Stages of Hyperreality
First Stage (A Sign Reflects Reality): You’ve got a symbol that points to something real. A photo of a mountain—it’s not the mountain, but it shows what’s out there. Clear connection, no tricks.
Second Stage (A Sign Distorts Reality): Now the symbol starts messing with the real. Think of a touched-up Instagram pic—still a photo of a mountain, but filters make it look “better” than the actual thing. Reality’s skewed, but you can still trace it back.
Third Stage (A Sign Pretends to Reflect Reality): Here’s where it gets dicey. The symbol acts like it’s tied to something real, but that real thing doesn’t exist. Baudrillard uses Disneyland as an example—a fake Main Street that sells nostalgia for a past that never was. It’s not reflecting reality; it’s inventing one.
Fourth Stage (Hyperreality—Signs Without Reality): Now the symbol doesn’t even pretend to care about reality—it’s a closed loop, a simulation of a simulation. Think reality TV: scripted drama sold as “real life,” but nobody’s asking what’s real anymore—they’re just hooked on the drama. The loop’s all that matters.
Got all that? Now let’s strap on our simulacra goggles and map this onto the Kamloops unmarked graves story—watch how reality gets buried.
Kamloops Through the Hyperreal Lens
First Stage: Sign Reflects Reality
If this were just about the radar findings, we’d start here—a report saying, “Hey, we found some weird soil patterns, might be graves, might not.” It’d point to a real investigation, grounded in facts. Residential schools left real scars, no question—but the Kamloops story spun into something else: a hyperreal mess where symbols outran facts. We didn’t linger here long.
Second Stage: Sign Distorts Reality
The initial framing—calling them “unmarked graves of children”—already stretched things. Ground-penetrating radar doesn’t show bodies; it shows anomalies. Media outlets, hungry for clicks, and activists, hungry for justice, ran with the graver version (pun intended). Headlines screamed “mass graves” (think CBC’s early “215 children found”), even though Tk’emlúps clarified it wasn’t that. Reality got airbrushed into something more dramatic.
Third Stage: Sign Pretends to Reflect Reality
Here’s where it gets spicy. The “215 children” became a cultural artifact—orange ribbons, vigils, government apologies—all built on a reality that wasn’t confirmed. It wasn’t lying outright; it just acted like the graves were a done deal. The media and public didn’t need proof—they needed a symbol. And boy, did they get one. Every Child Matters morphed into a movement, not a question.
Fourth Stage: Hyperreality—Signs Without Reality
Now we’re in 2025, and the simulation’s running the show. The “graves” aren’t just unproven—they’re beside the point. The story’s spawned funding (millions allocated for searches), laws (like bills to criminalize “denialism”), and endless X debates where “deniers” and “believers” slug it out over a phantom. It’s not about what’s under the ground anymore; it’s about what the idea of those graves does—how it shapes identity, guilt, policy, and power. That’s hyperreality: the menu’s tastier than the meal, and we’re all eating it up.
The Canadian Media’s Role
The media should be our first defense against false narratives and hyperreal incursions. Our Canadian media—particularly the CBC—ran headlong away from their duty to inform with facts. They chose style over substance, leaning hard into emotional hooks—“215 children,” “mass graves”—with little reporting on what ground-penetrating radar can reliably identify or the ground’s composition (leading to false positives). Objective reporting got tossed aside to boost the narrative and reactions to it. Stories about protests, church burnings, and government responses fed the loop, making the “graves” realer in discourse than in dirt. The simulacra’s at stage four—no reality needed for the story to keep going.
In Baudrillard’s world, this is how hyperreality wins—when the media trades facts for feelings, the simulation doesn’t just obscure reality; it replaces it. What happens when the next narrative rolls in—no dirt, all discourse?
The reporting around Kamloops isn’t about graves anymore; it’s about what simulacra we’ll fall for next. Baudrillard’s spinning in his grave—wherever that happens to be. So what’s the next simulacrum Canada’s media will peddle—more graves, more guilt, or something fresh? Drop your guess below.
Well, here we have 3 movie posters as they were displayed in mainland China. What do you see missing?
Are the anti-racism activists losing their minds about this? Can the vaunted arbiters of social justice be bothered with actual racism?
Naaaah. The REAL work is to keep looking for the systemically racism Unicorn that permeates EVERY facet of western society and must be rooted out – but only the experts can see it and you’ll have to hire them to get these dire systemic Unicorns out of your organization…
Should we actively oppose racism and racists sentiments, absolutely. Do we need a class of self appointed experts to root out the systemic racism that only they have the insight to see and root out? – Probably not.
In reference to an interesting coincidence, that through civil rights activism and a incremental changes to our society overt and institutionalized racism is largely over. But with most of racism in society gone, what then (thanks grok) – When cults face falsification of their beliefs, they often employ several strategies to retreat from reality:
Denial and Reinterpretation:
Denial: Cults might outright deny any evidence that contradicts their beliefs, claiming it to be false, misleading, or part of a conspiracy against them.
Reinterpretation: They might reinterpret the evidence in a way that fits their narrative. For example, if a prophecy doesn’t come true, they might claim it was a “spiritual” fulfillment or that the prophecy was misinterpreted by outsiders.
Isolation: Cults often increase their isolation from the outside world. This can involve moving to remote locations, restricting access to external information (like news or internet), or discouraging interactions with non-members. Isolation helps prevent members from being exposed to contradicting information or viewpoints
.
Shifting Blame or Goalposts:
Shifting Blame: If something goes wrong, rather than questioning the belief system, the leadership might blame members for not being faithful enough or external forces for interference.
Moving the Goalposts: They might change their doctrines or predictions subtly or significantly to account for the falsification without admitting error. This can mean setting new dates for prophecies or redefining what the prophecy meant.
Cognitive Dissonance Management:
When faced with evidence against their beliefs, members might experience cognitive dissonance. Cult leaders often provide explanations or new interpretations to reduce this discomfort, reinforcing loyalty and belief.
Increased Control and Manipulation:
There might be an increase in psychological manipulation techniques, like love bombing, where members are showered with affection to quell doubts, or fear tactics where leaving the group is associated with dire consequences.
Creation of Parallel Realities:
Cults might develop their own news sources, vocabulary, or interpretations of events to create a reality that aligns with their beliefs. This parallel reality can make external critique seem irrelevant or part of an antagonistic narrative.
Rituals and Practices:
Increasing the frequency or intensity of rituals can reinforce group identity and belief. These practices can act as a distraction from reality or as a mechanism to reaffirm faith in the face of contradictory evidence.
Charismatic Leadership:
The leader might become more central, perhaps through claiming new revelations or visions that explain away the falsification. This can also involve the leader becoming more authoritarian, ensuring that followers remain under tight control.
By using these methods, cults not only protect their belief systems from external critique but also maintain internal cohesion and loyalty among members, even when faced with undeniable evidence against their doctrines.
Would recommend.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…