The Right's Revisionism of Tom Cruise & Winston Churchill

One of These Men is on the Right Side of History

At their fittest, who would win in a fight, Tom Cruise or Winston Churchill?

You’re tempted to say Churchill, right?

He seems like a larger presence - certainly from a historical vantage point - having defeated the Nazis. Perhaps he’d be willing to fight dirty, too, and stab out a cigar in Cruise’s eye.

Yet, I’m inclined - perhaps even saddened - to admit that Cruise would win this fight.

I’ve never come across a figure quite as determined as Tom Cruise, the man who is - for all intents and purposes - the leader of the world’s most notorious cult: Scientology. I’ve often wondered aloud what aliens would find strangest about us if they landed today.

Trans ideology? Religion? Or the fact that - in a time when actors are cancelled for a poorly timed Tweet - a cult leader remains the world’s most worshipped Hollywood movie star?

Tom Cruise with a Scientology Award specifically created for him!

And now the revisionism.

It is a habit of the political extremes to pick apart accepted narratives about historical figures. In the horseshoe spectrum, the extremes on both sides who meet at the top have, for example, torn apart Winston Churchill.

The Left hates him because he won.

The Right hates him because his victory solidified the West. Since the resulting globalism has turned countries such as the UK into soulless airports screeching “Diversity is Our Strength”, it has become ‘cool’ to blame Churchill.

This is, of course, ridiculous.

Churchill’s was a victory for freedom in the face of real fascism. That Apparatchiks hijacked those freedoms in the name of diversity decades later is not his doing.

But in such revisionism, the truth - like the finer details - is irrelevant. The goal is to subvert, cause chaos and - in the process - look cool to one’s followers. “Hey, this thing you thought you knew,” goes the thought process, “it’s the opposite of what happened”.

And so we get to the Tom Cruise revisionism spreading like wildfire through social media right now.

In 2005, Cruise had just replaced his PR manager with his sister, a Scientologist. All restraints were off. Cruise went on a media spin mission to promulgate Scientology. This was around when he met Katie Holmes and jumped up and down on Oprah Winfrey’s couch like a cocker spaniel.

He participated in two memorably unhinged interviews:

One was with Australian journalist Peter Overton on 60 Minutes. “Put your manners back in” was among the memeable quotes. Then, there was his furious argument with Matt Lauer about psychiatric treatment for post-partum depression and ADHD.

Users with huge online followings, such as Justine Bateman and Patrick Bet-David, have shared the footage, suggesting that Cruise’s argument was “proven right” after 20 years.

This is an attractive idea because it plays on the feeling (often correct) that the powers that be are lying to us, and that our views - whatever they may be - will end up being “proven right” even if it takes decades.

First, a lot of what Cruise says in his interview is right.

He wasn’t the only person saying this at the time. Many of us were concerned about over-diagnosis and over-prescription of drugs for children in particular.

But we need to be sensible.

To even state that Cruise’s “argument” has been proven right after 20 years, we need to understand his argument. Like a snake oil salesman, Cruise rightly dispelled one dubious cure…only to replace it with his own, one that I doubt Patrick Bet-David and others would endorse.

If Cruise is your knight and Churchill your knave, then I’m afraid you’re at the wrong end of the horseshoe.

Get ready for it:

He argued that evil…

Sign up or get a free trial to read to the end!