It may be that I’m still a bit impaired from the alcohol last night, but I found this article rambling and incoherent. Tom is in a cult. They believe stupid weird shit. He still gets to perform on a massive stage. Nothing new.
I’ll totally agree that the author did not do a great job of stating their thesis plainly. However, I think that the article isn’t incoherent. The author is writing about why they are surprised and disappointed that France and the Olympics gave Tom Cruise a global spotlight. They claim he’s too much in bed with Scientology to make supporting him possible without supporting them. And they claim that France and french media should know better than to support Scientology.
I think it’s a reasonable objection and I’m glad someone is objecting. Although, again, I agree that the article could have benefited from having that thesis clearly written from the start.
Thanks for distilling it. I sorta got that but you’re better at describing it than the original author. Cheers!
Thanks for the TL;DR
All I saw was an elderly (he’s 62 - that not middle aged) cultist trying to look cool and it was as sad as that sounds. Then having the Red Hot Chiili Peppers, led by “Just For Men” sponsored Anthony Keidis, started to make me think that Michael Johnson inclusion was because he was going to compete in the 2028 Olympics.
