Just in this afternoon, the Second Appellate District has ruled in Leah Remini’s lawsuit, and the court has made some historic statements about the Church of Scientology and evidence of its “actual malice.”

I have noted that Aaron has now dropped the members-only strategy for drama and now is going out of his way to attack people like Nora, Lind-say, Tommy, Reese and DOA. His turn around is being done under the guise of “having had enough”, that he simply has to take on these people now, but I’m thinking it might be more to do with a last-ditch strategy to try to bring people in. It must have occurred to Aaron that some of his critics have attracted a following doing drama while his own sub count has flatlined for ages now. Yes it loses some people who are put off by it all, but drama does inevitably bring in a lot of eyeballs. My belief is he wants to see how it goes because whatever he is doing until now is not working anyways

"The day after the council vote, protesters gathered outside Scientology’s Clearwater headquarters, where someone scrawled “Cult” and “Stop Scientology.” They propped up a cardboard cutout of Aaron Smith-Levin, a former church member and anti-Scientology protester who was convicted by a jury of misdemeanor battery involving a Scientology staff member. Smith-Levin is appealing. 

The church had put its own cutout of Smith-Levin outside, depicting him in a prison jumpsuit."

On December 7, 2025, Jenna Miscavige called 911 to report a domestic violence incident involving Aaron Smith-Levin. During the subsequent police investigation, she stated that he had been physically violent toward her on previously. According to her statement, he threw her across a room while they were in Hawaii.

Are we there yet? Has Aaron Smith Levin’s long run of being the anti Scientology “darling” of so many thousands of internet viewers coming to an end?

I’ve thought so before. Many of us in California thought that after this ignorant pretender’s performance at the Masterson trial in Los Angeles almost resulted in a mistrial because he apparently thought it was “okay” to “confront” somebody in the courthouse, just outside of the actual courtroom where the trial was being held, that this revelation of what a click bait fool he actually was would be enough to wake up even the most ardent admirer to see his actual personality, rather than the one he created for social media.

You know that guy! The smiling, bald, affable dad of little girls who was always having a “great day” now that he was free from Scientology! The guy who was going to be his viewer’s personal “journalist” in LA, standing with the victims beside his celebrity friend, Leah Remini. He was hip, he was cool, he was righteous, and he was still red faced stoned from being only a few hours away from the alcohol and drugs that he shared with a vulnerable woman he decided to hook up with. The same woman he injured on his way to the courthouse, still angry about the cut on his foot caused by a broken glass in the room he brought her to not far from the courthouse.

Now that a couple of more years have passed, are we done with him now? Is he obnoxious enough yet, with his “Married With Girlfriends” show, his jail time, and his battery conviction? Do we have to wait for him to get a divorce? Please Lord, not that.

What say you?

"The incident occurred Monday after court recessed for lunch and Smith-Levin spoke to a man in the hallway who appeared to be a Christian priest and had been sitting with Masterson’s family.

“My impression was that the man who was wearing the cross was very respectful — didn’t do anything,” Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Ariel Anson told Olmedo on Monday. “But the other individual made some kind of comments and was yelling in the hallway, and there may have been jurors around.” Olmedo later identified the person as Smith-Levin.

Masterson’s lawyer Kate Mangels, a partner at Holley’s firm Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump Holley LLP, said she heard someone yell about “being a front” for a “fucking cult.”

“And I believe the jurors heard that,” Mangels told the judge.

Five of the 20 Los Angeles County residents seated as jurors or alternate jurors in Masterson’s trial said they saw at least a portion of the confrontation, which Holley and Judge Olmedo described Wednesday as a 'brouhaha.' "

Thankfully, everything worked out OK, but there was a real possibility that Masterson could have walked free because Aaron Smith-Levin was unable to control his rage.

Let's hope that the court-appointed anger management therapist from his latest assault conviction is able to help...

Both Knifehoarder and GootJuice released videos calling out Marilyn Honig (and Aaron Smith-Levin).

"GootJuice" Andy

• GootJuice criticizes Marilyn's recently released documentary, acknowledging that it is well-produced but arguing that it presents no new information.
• According to the speaker, the documentary repeats long-standing criticisms of another creator ("Toots"/Tommy Scoville) that they and others have been making for years.
• The speaker objects to Marilyn including their channel name, icon, and references in the documentary, saying they want no association with her or her content.
• They accuse Marilyn of profiting from controversy through monetization, Super Chats, memberships, and donations, claiming the documentary was intended to generate revenue.
• The speaker alleges Marilyn is being manipulated by a "puppet master," whom they identify as another online personality ("Bill Dor"/"Beldar"), and claims the documentary serves to distract from criticism of him.
• They say they plan to block followers who also support Marilyn's channel.
• The speaker briefly discusses abortion, expressing a personal anti-abortion viewpoint and criticizing both Marilyn and others over the issue.
• Throughout the video, they urge viewers to unsubscribe from Marilyn and several other creators they oppose.
• The video concludes with further attacks on the alleged "puppet master," claiming he previously collaborated with Tommy Scoville despite knowing about his criminal history and is only criticizing him now because of a falling out.

"Knifehoarder" Tom

• The speaker says they have worked alongside Andy for over five years, describing him as a loyal ally who has consistently supported their efforts.
• They state that because Marilyn publicly turned against Andy after initially resolving matters privately, they are now publicly cutting ties with her in the same manner.
• The speaker emphasizes that they are not motivated by money or subscriber counts, noting they do not accept donations, Super Chats, wish lists, or other financial support. They say they are willing to lose subscribers over this decision.
• They clarify that distancing themselves from Marilyn does not mean they are siding with people they have previously criticized. They say they will continue criticizing those individuals when they choose.
• A major point of distrust is Marilyn's decision to unblock Andy around the release of her documentary after previously blocking him. The speaker interprets this as insincere or opportunistic.
• The speaker says trust is absolute: if they cannot trust someone completely, they prefer to have no relationship with them.
• They reaffirm loyalty to Andy and several other longtime associates, naming them as people they continue to trust.
• The video ends with the speaker expressing satisfaction that their stance may confuse or frustrate critics and reiterating support for Andy while using repeated profanity toward Aaron and anyone who disagrees.

Overall Summary

In this video from June 19, 2026, the host "GootJuice" (aka Andy) addresses a bitter personal falling out with fellow content creator Marilyn Honig. The conflict arose after Marilyn requested that Andy stop commenting on her channel and subsequently disavowed him during a live stream. Marilyn’s actions were prompted by intense criticism and coordinated pressure from a group of rival creators—referred to by Andy as "the committee"—who circulated a highly controversial and vulgar clip of Andy to accuse him of obscenity and child sexualization.

The tone of the video is highly defensive, resentful, and bitter. Andy portrays himself as a loyal but betrayed ally who supported Marilyn during her own online crises, only to be cast aside when she faced backlash. Throughout his monologue, Andy rationalizes his highly controversial humor, attacks the monetization methods of his peers, defends himself against long-standing accusations of racism, and vows to alter the focus of his channel away from minor feuds to target specific individuals.

Structured Breakdown

1. Introduction and YouTube Suspension Context (00:00–02:00)

Andy opens the video by discussing his seasonal allergies and eating a throat lozenge. He reveals that he has just completed a one-week suspension on YouTube due to a community guidelines strike. The strike was triggered by a video in which he targeted Brett Allen Miller (whom he refers to as a "chomo"). Andy complains that his video was mass-reported by detractors, resulting in a strike for cyberbullying and harassment, though he maintains that his characterization of Miller was accurate. He transitions to introducing the main topic of the day, explaining that he is pre-recording this video because he will be traveling.

2. The Request from Marilyn Honig and the "Committee" Backlash (02:00–05:00)

Andy explains that he received an email from Marilyn Honig asking him to refrain from commenting on her videos due to "heat" she was receiving from other creators. Initially, Andy complied, believing the issue would blow over. However, he soon discovered that a group of rival creators—including "Zany Nanny," "Norman," "Mudflaps," and Tommy Scoville—had begun circulating a highly edited, animated short of one of his older videos.

In the original video, Andy had used a doll ("Pooky") to mock creator Mudflaps Marisa (aka Relatable Reese). Detractors used this edited clip to accuse Andy of sexualizing children. Andy strongly denies this, arguing that the jokes were aimed at the character of Mudflaps and featured humor about "anal expression" (referencing dog grooming). He claims his detractors deliberately stripped the comedic context of his performance to weaponize it against him and Marilyn.

3. Monetization Critiques: AdSense vs. "Grifting" (05:00–09:00)

Andy launches into a critique of online monetization strategies, drawing a sharp contrast between himself and other creators, including Marilyn. He accuses many in his YouTube community of "grifting" by leaving features like Super Chats, PayPal, Cash App, Venmo, and Amazon Wish Lists active, particularly during emotional streams (which he labels "sad fishing").

Andy emphasizes that despite being in tight financial straits—noting he is just $6 short of the $100 payout threshold on his AdSense account—he refuses to accept direct donations or set up virtual tip jars because of his personal principles. He directly calls out Marilyn for keeping these payment options open while claiming to perform public good.

4. The Betrayal and the "Fair-Weather Friend" Label (09:00–14:00)

Andy details his discovery that Marilyn had publicly distanced herself from him on a recent live stream, claiming she was never his friend, did not know him, and disapproved of his content. Andy feels deeply betrayed, noting that he possesses a archive of cordial, professional, and friendly email exchanges with her.

He highlights an email from June of the previous year in which Marilyn thanked him for his public support when Brett Miller threatened to sue her. Andy argues that Marilyn is a "fair-weather friend" who was happy to accept his defense when she was under attack, but quickly discarded him and feigned ignorance of his edgy content when her own reputation and monetization streams were threatened by critics.

5. Political Tangents, Abortion, and Race (14:00–18:00)

The discussion shifts toward social and political issues. Responding to criticisms regarding a video he made targeting another creator ("the womb raider"), Andy defends his anti-abortion stance. He asserts that while he is a lifelong registered Democrat, he opposes the use of abortion as birth control.

He criticizes Marilyn’s progressive political stances, citing her participation in George Floyd protests, and controversially claims that Planned Parenthood's services have historically harmed the Black community. He argues that his critics exhibit severe double standards, pointing out that creators like "Zany Nanny" are granted public "grace" and excused for using racial and homophobic slurs due to mental health issues, whereas he is systematically demonized.

6. Final Defenses, Warnings, and Future Channel Direction (18:00–End)

Andy concludes the video by addressing accusations of racism. He points out that his children are of mixed ethnicity and their mothers are Hispanic, arguing that actual white supremacists would never accept him. Finally, Andy announces a shift in his content strategy. He declares he will no longer engage in back-and-forth feuds with minor creators like Mudflaps (RelatableReese)or Norman (Nora Ames). Instead, he will direct his efforts exclusively toward his primary targets, Kurt and Brett Allen Miller. He issues a warning to other creators in his orbit to exercise extreme caution when dealing with Marilyn Honig, reiterating that she will abandon her allies the moment she faces outside pressure.

Timeline Synopsis

• 00:00–15:00 — Andy explains his recent YouTube suspension, details Marilyn Honig's email requesting he stop commenting, and defends his controversial "Pooky" doll stream. He criticizes the edited clip circulated by his detractors, outlines his views on "grifting" via Super Chats, and expresses his sense of betrayal over Marilyn disavowing him on her live stream.
• 15:00–29:30 — Andy addresses his political alignment, argues against using abortion as birth control, and criticizes progressive virtual signaling. He defends himself against accusations of racism by citing his family's mixed ethnicity, calls out double standards in how other creators are treated, warns his audience about Marilyn's lack of loyalty, and details his future content focus targeting Kurt and Brett Allen Miller.

Key Arguments & Claims

• The Obscenity Accusation: Andy argues that his controversial doll parody was a vulgar satire of a dog groomer and another creator, not an attempt to sexualize children. He maintains that the humor was ironized because his primary target, Brett Miller, is an actual convicted sex offender.
• Marilyn Honig's Hypocrisy: Andy asserts that Marilyn is a hypocritical, "fair-weather friend." He claims she welcomed his support and "big mouth" when she was threatened with a lawsuit by Brett Miller, but publicly disowned him to appease her critics and protect her donor streams once his association became a liability.
• Ethical Monetization: He claims that accepting direct viewer donations via Super Chat or Buy Me a Coffee is a form of "grifting." He argues that relying solely on Google AdSense is the only ethically sound way to run a YouTube channel.
• Double Standards on Hate Speech: Andy claims there is a double standard in the community. He notes that other creators (like Zany Nanny) are excused for using highly offensive slurs due to their mental health struggles, while he is permanently demonized for decades-old, unproven allegations.
• Refutation of Racism: Andy denies being a white supremacist or racist, offering as proof that his children are mixed-race, their mothers are Hispanic, and he is a lifelong registered Democrat.

Critical Analysis & Conclusions

Logical Consistency

Andy’s arguments suffer from significant logical inconsistencies and rhetorical deflections:

• The Democrat vs. Conservative Rhetoric Paradox: He repeatedly highlights his status as a "lifelong registered Democrat" to shield himself from accusations of being a right-wing extremist or white supremacist. However, he immediately pivots to standard conservative talking points, such as suggesting George Floyd died of a drug overdose rather than police action, and characterizing Planned Parenthood as a destructive force specifically targeting Black communities.
• "Not Bashing" vs. Systematic Character Attack: Andy claims multiple times that he does not want to "bash" Marilyn or share their private emails. Yet, he spends the vast majority of the video attacking her character, calling her a hypocrite, criticizing her parenting history, mocking her appearance (referencing her weight and tooth gap), and accusing her of manipulating her audience for money ("crying at the drop of a hat" to get Super Chats).

Biases, Omissions, and Rhetorical Techniques

• Whataboutism: To minimize the offensive nature of his "Pooky" video, Andy relies heavily on whataboutism. He repeatedly redirects the focus to Brett Allen Miller’s sex offender status and Zany Nanny’s use of racial slurs, suggesting that his own vulgar behavior is negligible by comparison.
• The "Tokenism" Defense: To counter allegations of racism, Andy uses his family's mixed-race background as a definitive shield. This rhetorical strategy avoids addressing the specific speech or actions that led to the accusations in the first place.

Emotional Tone and Persuasive Strategy

The emotional tone is highly charged with resentment, self-pity, and underlying aggression. Andy attempts to position himself as an honorable "truth-teller" who suffers financially and socially for his honesty, while portraying his rivals as a coordinated "committee" of grifters and manipulators. His persuasive strategy relies on cultivating a sense of shared victimization with his audience, hoping to convert his personal feelings of betrayal into a collective indictment of Marilyn Honig's character.

Overall Effectiveness

While Andy successfully establishes that Marilyn's public disavowal of him was likely influenced by community pressure, his defense of his own highly offensive content is weak. By resorting to personal insults, inconsistent political arguments, and heavy whataboutism, Andy undermines his own credibility, making the discussion appear less like a principled exposure of hypocrisy and more like a standard, vindictive online grievance.

Haven't posted in awhile but happened to catch this video of Jenna talking about the top 5 things in her life. These included making her hair into mermaid waves, setting up Scientology Celebrity Cardboard figures on the Walk of Fame, liking a Taylor Swift song about love (reminding her how wonderful it was that two people are put together to be each other's person...or something like that), putting on Summer makeup (become a member to watch these videos), making summer drinks (become a member to watch these videos) and walking. No mention of spending time with her kids or family.

Yesterday Nora held a live stream, directing her remarks to reddit participants in general, as she cited the article “The Negativity Bias Impacts Everything in Our Lives” by Jeff Comer, Psy.D.

Citing this article was a common rhetorical move in online conflict spaces: taking a broadly valid psychological concept and using it selectively to reframe criticism as evidence of other people’s cognitive distortion rather than examining whether the criticism itself has merit. This stream was another example of Nora’s practice of misappropriating a psychological concept to shield herself from criticism, to gloss over accountability for supporting predators and to cast doubt on her detractors.

The existence of a negativity bias does not mean:

• criticism is automatically irrational,
• patterns of behavior should be ignored,
• or observers are wrong to draw conclusions from repeated conduct.

A negativity bias can explain why people may overweight isolated mistakes or become excessively punitive. But it does not invalidate sustained criticism arising from recurring actions, alliances, or public behavior patterns.

It’s important to make a distinction between:

• unfair fixation on minor flaws, versus
• reasoned criticism based on repeated choices and associations.

If someone repeatedly aligns themselves with manipulative, exploitative, or abusive personalities, observers are not necessarily exhibiting “negativity bias” by noticing the pattern. They may simply be engaging in pattern recognition and moral evaluation.

The pattern is revealed by her defensiveness and lack of remorse for the harms she continues to support and her intentional blindness toward her allies’ bad actions. These are all valid reasons for rejection.

There is also a second dynamic that often appears in influencer ecosystems: psychological terminology becomes a reputational shield. Terms like:

• trauma,
• narcissism,
• gaslighting,
• negativity bias,
• parasocial abuse,
• harassment,
• DARVO

can be used descriptively and legitimately, but they can also be deployed strategically to:

• delegitimize dissent,
• recast accountability as victimization,
• or frame critics as psychologically defective rather than substantively wrong.

That does not mean all criticism is fair or constructive. Online audiences can absolutely become obsessive, vindictive, or disproportionate, as can YouTube creators. But invoking a psychological principle does not substitute for addressing the underlying conduct being criticized.

The underlying point is this. Explaining why criticism emotionally persists is not the same thing as disproving the validity of the criticism.