You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘DEI’ tag.
There’s a reason this image works. It uses a word almost everyone agrees with—equality—and then quietly fills that word with something else. The result is not an argument. It’s a substitution.
Look at it closely. The word “EQUALITY” is rendered in bright, appealing colors, layered with symbols of recognizable identity categories: disability, sexuality, gender, race, activism. Beneath it, the slogan: “hurts no one.” At the level of feeling, this is uncontroversial. Of course equality hurts no one. That’s the point of the concept. Equal treatment under the same rules is the baseline promise of any liberal order. But that is not what the image is actually depicting. The text says equality. The visual payload says something else entirely.
Equality, properly understood, is individual and procedural. It asks a simple question: are the same rules being applied to each person, regardless of who they are? It does not guarantee equal outcomes. It does not engineer results. It does not sort people into categories and adjust treatment accordingly. It holds the line at equal standing before the law and equal access to opportunity. That is why it is durable. It does not require constant intervention or measurement. It does not need to know who you are in order to decide how you should be treated.
The imagery in this poster points in a different direction. It is not concerned with individuals. It is concerned with groups. Each symbol represents a category that, within contemporary political frameworks, is treated as requiring not just equal treatment, but differential treatment in order to achieve parity of outcomes. That is the logic behind quotas, preferences, representational mandates, and a wide range of institutional policies now grouped under the umbrella of equity. That distinction matters. Because once you move from equal treatment to managed outcomes, you have to start making choices about who gets what, and why.
This is where the slogan “hurts no one” stops doing honest work. Equality, in the classical sense, really does not hurt anyone. It simply refuses to privilege or penalize based on identity. Equity, by contrast, is not costless. It reallocates opportunities. It lowers or shifts standards in some contexts. It elevates some groups explicitly. That may be justified in specific cases, but it is not neutral, and it is not universally painless. Someone is always paying the adjustment.
The poster resolves this tension through a familiar rhetorical move. It collapses the distinction. By wrapping equity-coded symbols inside the word equality, it invites the viewer to endorse a more controversial framework under the banner of a universally accepted one. The move is subtle enough that many people will not notice it, but strong enough that disagreement can be framed as opposition to “equality” itself. That is not clarification. It is camouflage.
The poster says equality. It is not. And pretending otherwise is not harmless, no matter how bright the colors or how reassuring the slogan.
You can see the tell in the composition. If the message were truly about equality in the classical sense, the image would not need to foreground identity categories at all. It would not need symbols. It would not need color-coding. The entire point of equality is that the categories do not matter when rules are applied. Here, the categories are the point. They are not incidental. They are doing the conceptual work.
None of this means the concerns associated with those categories are trivial or illegitimate. Some are serious. Some are contested. Some are overextended. All of them deserve to be argued on their own terms. But that argument has to be made honestly. It cannot be smuggled in under a word that already carries broad moral agreement.
This is the broader pattern. Take a term with a stable, widely accepted meaning. Expand or alter the underlying concept. Keep the original word. Let the new meaning ride on the old legitimacy. If challenged, collapse the distinction and accuse critics of opposing the original value. It is effective. It is also corrosive.
Words are not decoration. They are load-bearing. If we stop distinguishing between equality and equity, we lose the ability to argue about either of them clearly. And when that happens, policy follows confusion. Decisions get made without admitting what is being traded off, or who is being prioritized. That is not a small failure. It is how serious disagreements get papered over until they break.
I woke this morning to the sort of silence one usually associates with miracles or the CBC losing funding. It was not the usual Canadian silence of people muttering “well, that’s concerning” while being mugged by ideology in a Lululemon hoodie. No. It was the silence that comes after a fever breaks.
By breakfast, the first signs were impossible to miss. Gender ideology had finally been moved to its proper shelf: comparative religion. It now sat comfortably beside crystal healing, Gnostic sects, and the more enthusiastic forms of astrology. Canadians, with characteristic politeness, agreed that adults were free to believe in innate gender spirits if they wished. They were simply no longer allowed to drag those beliefs into schools, prisons, women’s shelters, human rights tribunals, or sports governing bodies and demand that everybody else call it science.
Female spaces reverted, almost overnight, to the radical old principle that women are female. Women’s prisons once again housed women. Women’s shelters once again served women. Women’s hospital wards, changing rooms, crisis centres, rape relief services, and athletic categories all quietly recovered their original function. The country did not collapse. No one burst into flames. The sun rose, the buses ran late, and Canadian women experienced the deeply unfamiliar sensation of not having to explain why privacy, fairness, and physical safety were not hate crimes.
“They were replaced by the revolutionary practice of getting on with things.”
Even the sports pages improved. Men were removed from women’s competitions with so little fuss one wondered why the insanity had been allowed to continue so long. Records began to mean something again. Girls stopped being told that getting flattened by male bodies was a teachable moment in inclusion.
Meanwhile, Canada seemed to have recovered from a long and embarrassing binge. DEI offices vanished like travelling carnivals after a municipal scandal. Land acknowledgements were quietly retired from every meeting and kindergarten graduation after the public noticed they had not, in fact, altered land title or improved anyone’s life. They were replaced by the revolutionary practice of getting on with things.
Freedom of speech also made an unexpected return. Not the decorative kind. The real kind. The kind where one could say true or unpopular things without being marched through a moral struggle session by people whose entire personality is a lanyard.
For several glorious hours, the country seemed almost curable.
Then I remembered the date.
Happy April Fool’s Day.
Travis Dhanraj’s July 7, 2025 resignation from CBC News exposes a deepening crisis at Canada’s public broadcaster: a culture of ideological conformity that punishes dissent and undermines its public mandate. In a scathing resignation letter, Dhanraj claims he was “forced to resign” due to a “workplace culture defined by retaliation, exclusion, and psychological harm,” where questioning “tokenism masquerading as diversity, problematic political coverage protocols, and the erosion of editorial independence” became a “career-ending move.” His allegations paint a damning picture of an institution that prioritizes a monolithic worldview over journalistic integrity. A 20-year veteran and former host of Canada Tonight, Dhanraj says he was “systematically sidelined” and “denied the editorial access and institutional support necessary to fulfill my public service role” after advocating for more balanced coverage. These claims raise urgent questions about CBC’s commitment to serving all Canadians.
According to Dhanraj and his legal counsel, CBC’s approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) functions as a veneer for performative tokenism rather than genuine pluralism. His resignation letter denounces what he calls “a system designed to elevate certain voices and diminish others,” alleging that his efforts to confront this imbalance were met with retaliation. His lawyer, Kathryn Marshall, contends that CBC leadership assumed Dhanraj would adopt a “liberal worldview” based on his Indo-Caribbean background—an expectation that turned into marginalization when he platformed politically diverse voices, including Conservatives.
When he sought to broaden the range of political perspectives on air, Dhanraj claims that “internal booking and editorial protocols were weaponized to create structural barriers for some while empowering others, particularly a small circle of senior Ottawa-based journalists.” These allegations suggest that the CBC’s DEI policies prioritize surface-level representation while enforcing ideological uniformity. Such practices risk alienating Canadians who value intellectual diversity and erode the CBC’s credibility as a publicly funded institution tasked with reflecting the full spectrum of public opinion.
Dhanraj’s experience further illustrates the erosion of editorial independence and objectivity within CBC News. “I was told I would be ‘a bold voice in journalism.’ I took that role seriously,” he writes. “But what happens behind the scenes at CBC too often contradicts what’s shown to the public.” His push to “expand political balance” reportedly led to accusations that he was on a “crusade,” and he was “repeatedly denied access to key newsmakers.” The February 2025 cancellation of Canada Tonight—replaced by Hanomansing Tonight—and CBC’s internal investigation into an April 2024 post on X, in which Dhanraj noted then-president Catherine Tait’s refusal to be interviewed, indicate an institutional climate that discourages independent inquiry and punishes dissent.
CBC’s public response has done little to allay these concerns. In a statement, spokesperson Kerry Kelly said the broadcaster “categorically rejects” Dhanraj’s allegations but cited “privacy and confidentiality considerations,” offering no substantive rebuttal. This evasive posture reinforces perceptions of an organization more interested in protecting its image than addressing internal dysfunction. Meanwhile, CBC head of public affairs Chuck Thompson insisted that Dhanraj remains “on leave”—despite his public resignation—raising questions about transparency. Adding to the controversy, CBC allegedly demanded that Dhanraj sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which he refused. Marshall described the NDA as “Stalinist,” claiming it was designed not to protect privacy but to “sign away [Dhanraj’s] voice.” If accurate, this suggests an institution seeking to suppress criticism rather than confront it.
The CBC’s apparent descent into ideological conformity demands more than cosmetic reform. Dhanraj’s resignation is a clarion call: “CBC doesn’t need more workshops. It needs accountability. It needs reform. It needs courage.” If left unaddressed, the broadcaster risks permanent reputational damage and growing public disengagement.
Reform must begin at the top—replacing leadership that enforces orthodoxy, revisiting DEI frameworks that suppress intellectual pluralism, and reestablishing editorial protocols that prioritize accuracy, fairness, and independence. Journalists must be empowered to ask hard questions without fear of reprisal. Only through such transformation can the CBC rebuild trust and fulfill its mandate to serve all Canadians, not just those who share a prevailing ideological stance.
The nation is watching. Silence is no longer an option.
Sources Cited
-
Dhanraj, Travis. “Email to all‑staff at CBC News,” July 7, 2025. Published excerpts via St. Albert Gazette (Canadian Press):
Nicole Thompson, St. Albert Gazette, “CBC News anchor Travis Dhanraj says he was ‘forced’ to resign…” July 7, 2025.
URL: https://www.stalbertgazette.com/lifestyle-news/cbc-news-anchor-travis-dhanraj-says-he-was-forced-to-resign-from-broadcaster-10912196 Reddit+7St. Albert Gazette+7Yahoo News UK+7 -
Lawyer Kathryn Marshall (statement):
As quoted in St. Albert Gazette:CBC assumed Dhanraj would hold a certain “liberal world view” based on “the colour of his skin.” MediaPolicy.ca+4St. Albert Gazette+4The Hub+4
-
Quote from resignation letter (“tokenism masquerading as diversity…”):
Reported in St. Albert Gazette and Yahoo News UK:
Yahoo News UK, “CBC host Travis Dhanraj says he was ‘silenced’ and ‘forced to resign’…” MediaPolicy.ca+3The Hub+3The Times of India+3St. Albert Gazette+2Yahoo News UK+2Reddit+2 -
CBC response (“categorically rejects the accusations…” / privacy concerns):
St. Albert Gazette via CP confirms CBC’s statement quoting Kerry Kelly Yahoo News UK+6St. Albert Gazette+6Reddit+6 -
Replacement of Canada Tonight with Hanomansing Tonight (Feb 2025):
Wikipedia, Ian Hanomansing page:…CBC announced that Hanomansing will become host of a new nightly news program, Hanomansing Tonight, on CBC News Network beginning February 18, 2025. Instagram+3Wikipedia+3Reddit+3
-
Lawyer describing NDA as “Stalinist” and the broader legal push (including planned human rights complaint):
Referenced in r/canadian thread summarizing quotes from Dhanraj and Marshall: MediaPolicy.caYouTube+7Reddit+7The Hub+7 -
Coverage and push for accountability (“Conservatives want hearings…”):
MediaPolicy.ca, “Conservatives want hearings on Travis Dhanraj quitting the CBC,” July 12, 2025. YouTube+9MediaPolicy.ca+9MediaPolicy.ca+9 -
Further legal details and broader staff culture claims:
MediaPolicy.ca, July 17, 2025, describes Marshall’s invitation to whistleblowers and her “Stalinist” remark. MediaPolicy.ca -
General reporting on toxic workplace culture and DEI criticism:
Times of India, “CBC news anchor Travis Dhanraj resigns, citing ‘toxic and bullying’ workplace culture,” July 8, 2025. The Times of India
Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of Canadian democracy, enshrined in Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the right to express one’s opinions and beliefs without fear of censorship or reprisal. This fundamental right fosters open dialogue, encourages diverse perspectives, and underpins a free and democratic society. However, in recent years, the rise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, often rooted in ideological frameworks that prioritize certain narratives over others, has posed challenges to free expression. The case of Margaret Munn, a teacher candidate at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), exemplifies how such initiatives can suppress dissenting voices. Munn faced significant repercussions for expressing views critical of DEI and decolonization policies during her teacher training, highlighting a troubling trend where ideological conformity overshadows open discourse (FSU Canada, 2024).
Margaret Munn’s experience at UWO illustrates the chilling effect of DEI initiatives on academic freedom and free speech. As a mature student in the Bachelor of Education program, Munn was required to demonstrate “professionalism” by aligning with DEI and decolonization principles, which she found overly prescriptive. When she expressed concerns about these frameworks and their impact on educational practices, she faced accusations of unprofessionalism and was ultimately expelled from her practicum placement. This led to her inability to complete her degree, effectively derailing her career aspirations (FSU Canada, 2024). The Faculty of Education’s response, as detailed in court documents, emphasized adherence to institutional values over open debate, suggesting that questioning DEI principles was incompatible with professional standards (Court File No. CV-24-00002418-0000, 2024). This case underscores how DEI initiatives, when rigidly enforced, can create an environment where only approved viewpoints are tolerated, stifling the very diversity of thought they claim to promote.
The broader implications of Munn’s case reflect a growing tension between free speech and ideological mandates in Canadian institutions. DEI frameworks often emphasize collective equity over individual rights, which can lead to policies that prioritize certain groups’ sensitivities over open dialogue. At UWO, Munn was penalized not for harmful actions but for her intellectual dissent, which was deemed a violation of the faculty’s commitment to inclusivity (Quillette, 2024). This approach mirrors a wider trend where “woke” ideologies—encompassing DEI, decolonization, and related social justice frameworks—impose speech codes that limit what can be said or questioned. Such restrictions risk creating echo chambers, where only ideologically aligned perspectives are permitted, undermining the principles of academic inquiry and free expression that universities are meant to uphold. The suppression of Munn’s voice demonstrates how these initiatives can weaponize concepts like professionalism to silence dissent, eroding the pluralistic foundation of Canadian society.
Defending freedom of speech requires acknowledging that true diversity includes diversity of thought, even when those thoughts challenge prevailing ideologies. The Munn case highlights the need for institutions to prioritize open debate over ideological conformity. Universities, as bastions of intellectual freedom, should foster environments where students and faculty can question policies like DEI without fear of retribution. The Faculty Solidarity Unit (FSU) argues that Munn’s expulsion reflects a systemic issue where academic institutions prioritize ideological goals over Charter-protected rights (FSU Canada, 2024). Protecting free speech does not mean endorsing every viewpoint but ensuring that all perspectives can be expressed and debated without penalty. By contrast, the rigid application of DEI frameworks, as seen at UWO, risks creating a hierarchy of acceptable speech, where only certain ideas are deemed safe or professional, undermining the democratic principles that allow Canada to thrive.
In conclusion, the case of Margaret Munn vs. University of Western Ontario serves as a cautionary tale about the erosion of freedom of speech in Canada under the guise of DEI and related ideological initiatives. While these frameworks aim to promote inclusivity, their implementation can suppress dissenting voices, as seen in Munn’s expulsion for questioning institutional policies. Freedom of speech is not just a legal right but a cultural necessity that enables robust debate and the pursuit of truth. To safeguard this right, Canadian institutions must resist the temptation to enforce ideological conformity and instead embrace open dialogue, even when it challenges prevailing norms. By doing so, they can uphold the values of a free and democratic society where all voices, including those like Munn’s, are heard and respected (Quillette, 2024).
References
- FSU Canada. (2024). Margaret Munn v. University of Western Ontario. Retrieved from https://fsucanada.ca/margaret-munn-v-university-of-western-ontario/
- Court File No. CV-24-00002418-0000. (2024). Munn v. University of Western Ontario. Retrieved from https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:325ae543-0142-4ab4-9bb6-c79bae4e4571?viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
- Quillette. (2024). Lessons from a Teachers’ College Battle over Free Speech and Decolonization. Retrieved from https://quillette.com/2024/11/29/lessons-from-a-teachers-college-battle-over-free-speech-and-decolonization/
The DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) requirements for the Library Technician position at BC Cancer in Vancouver appear to be more of a political purity test than a set of skills directly relevant to the job. The qualifications demand a deep understanding of systemic racism, Indigenous Peoples’ health contexts, and familiarity with specific legislative documents like the Truth & Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. While these are important societal issues, they are not inherently tied to the core duties of a library technician, such as organizing materials, assisting patrons, or managing databases. This focus on ideological alignment risks prioritizing political correctness over practical expertise, potentially alienating candidates who excel in the technical and operational aspects of the role but may not meet these specific ideological benchmarks.
Moreover, these requirements could deter highly qualified candidates who lack the specified DEI knowledge but possess exceptional skills in library management, customer service, or technical proficiency. For instance, a candidate with years of experience in library systems, a knack for efficient cataloging, and strong interpersonal skills might be overlooked if they haven’t engaged deeply with Indigenous-specific anti-racism education or settler-colonial history. By emphasizing these DEI criteria, the hiring process may inadvertently filter out individuals who could otherwise excel in the role, replacing merit-based selection with a test of ideological conformity. This approach undermines the goal of hiring the best candidate for the job, as it prioritizes social justice credentials over the practical abilities needed to perform the role effectively.
Ultimately, while fostering diversity and inclusion is a noble goal, the DEI requirements for this position create an unnecessary barrier to entry that may compromise the quality of the hire. The library technician role demands skills like alphanumeric filing, communication, and equipment operation, as outlined in the job description, yet the DEI expectations overshadow these core competencies. By focusing on political and cultural knowledge that is tangential to the job’s day-to-day responsibilities, BC Cancer risks missing out on candidates who could bring efficiency, innovation, and excellence to the role, thus hindering the organization’s ability to serve its patrons effectively.
https://jobs.phsa.ca/job/vancouver/library-technician-bc-cancer-vancouver/909/79784591232
So much of the discussion around DEI is people arguing about two or more very different ideas of what DEI is. Let’s investigate that problem – like many of the situations we face as a society today much of the furor is being caused by have multiple definitions of the same idea.
Polysemy—the fact that words or concepts like DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) can have multiple meanings—does indeed complicate discussions about it. Supporters might define DEI as a noble effort to ensure fairness and opportunity for all, as seen in your earlier examples (e.g., accommodations for disabled neighbors or pregnant friends). Critics, however, might interpret it differently, focusing on its implementation or unintended consequences. Below is a 5-point breakdown of why DEI, as commonly applied, might not be a good thing for society, while acknowledging this definitional divide and approaching the critique thoughtfully.
1. It Can Prioritize Group Identity Over Individual Merit
-
Critics’ View: DEI often emphasizes categories like race, gender, or disability status, which can shift focus away from a person’s skills or qualifications. For example, hiring quotas (real or perceived) might lead to someone being chosen to “check a box” rather than based on their ability.
-
Supporters’ Definition Clash: Supporters might say DEI is about removing barriers, not enforcing quotas—like ensuring the autistic barista gets a fair shot. But when DEI translates into policies that seem to favor group outcomes over individual effort, it risks alienating those who value meritocracy, creating resentment instead of unity.
2. It May Undermine Equal Treatment Under the Guise of Equity
-
Critics’ View: Equity, a core DEI pillar, seeks equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities. This can lead to unequal treatment—e.g., giving extra resources to one group while others receive less, even if their circumstances differ due to personal choices or chance. Critics argue this contradicts the principle of fairness it claims to uphold.
-
Supporters’ Definition Clash: Supporters might frame equity as leveling the playing field (e.g., accommodations for a pregnant friend via FMLA). Yet when DEI pushes beyond legal protections into preferential policies, it can feel like reverse discrimination to those outside the targeted groups, fueling social division.
3. It Risks Oversimplifying Complex Social Issues
-
Critics’ View: DEI often reduces multifaceted problems—like poverty, education gaps, or workplace struggles—to identity-based solutions. For instance, a veteran’s employment challenges might stem from PTSD or lack of training, not just their veteran status. DEI’s broad brush can miss these nuances, offering symbolic fixes rather than addressing root causes.
-
Supporters’ Definition Clash: Supporters might argue DEI raises awareness of systemic barriers (e.g., for the Down syndrome bagger). But critics contend that awareness alone, without tailored solutions, can become performative, leaving deeper issues unresolved while claiming progress.
4. It Can Foster Resentment and Polarization
-
Critics’ View: When DEI initiatives spotlight certain groups for special attention, others may feel excluded or unfairly judged. For example, a non-disabled worker might resent extra accommodations for a colleague who works fewer hours, even if those accommodations are fair. This breeds a “zero-sum” mindset where one group’s gain feels like another’s loss.
-
Supporters’ Definition Clash: Supporters might see DEI as uplifting everyone (e.g., ensuring the disabled neighbor thrives). Yet if the messaging or execution seems to pit groups against each other, it can erode trust and cohesion—counter to the inclusive society supporters envision.
5. It May Encourage Dependency on Institutional Fixes Over Personal Agency
-
Critics’ View: By framing systemic change as the solution, DEI can unintentionally discourage individual initiative. If people expect workplaces to adapt to every need (beyond reasonable accommodations), it might weaken resilience or accountability—like assuming a job should mold to you rather than you rising to meet its demands.
-
Supporters’ Definition Clash: Supporters might say DEI empowers people (e.g., giving the autistic barista tools to succeed). Critics, though, worry that over-reliance on DEI frameworks could shift responsibility from individuals to institutions, reducing self-reliance and long-term societal strength.
Closing Thought:
The polysemy of DEI is key here. Supporters often define it as a compassionate, inclusive ideal—helping the marginalized shine, as in your examples. Critics, however, see it as a bureaucratic or ideological tool that, in practice, can distort fairness, divide people, and oversimplify reality. The tension lies in how it’s applied: a supporter’s vision of DEI as “opportunity for all” might not match the critic’s experience of it as “preference for some.” This gap suggests society might benefit more from targeted, practical solutions (like existing laws or community efforts) than a catch-all framework that means different things to different people.
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.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…