|| Not impersonating Joe Rogan || Don’t have 3 hours for the JRE? We break down the best moments into bite-sized, informative recaps so you stay in the loop!
Joined November 2024
- Tweets2.8K
- Following99
- Followers59.6K
- Likes715
Pinned Tweet
Need you guys to follow The News Buffet right now. They’re new, but easily the most entertaining news site on X. If you don’t believe me go scroll their entire feed right now and decide for yourself @TheNewsBuffetX
🚨NEW: Joe Rogan was just in pure amazement as paleontologist Kenneth Lacovara gives a masterclass on exactly how the asteroid that hit Earth killed all the dinosaurs by turning the planet into a giant oven and that the only creatures that survived were masters at burrowing underground:
LACOVARA: “Within an hour after the impact, temperatures got way up somewhere between toaster oven and pizza oven. So if you're on the surface of planet Earth that day, you're literally toast. They're extinct the day of the impact, which is shocking.”
CONTEXT: Approximately 66 MILLION YEARS AGO, an asteroid roughly SIX MILES WIDE slammed into the area now known as Mexico's YUCATÁN PENINSULA.
The impact created the CHICXULUB CRATER, a massive scar stretching roughly 120 MILES across.
The collision released an almost unimaginable amount of energy.
Enormous quantities of rock were pulverized, melted and vaporized.
Material from the impact was launched high above Earth's atmosphere, with some debris traveling around the planet before eventually falling back toward the surface.
But here's the truly terrifying part.
The catastrophe wasn't necessarily over once the asteroid hit.
In some scientific reconstructions, one of its deadliest effects came AFTER the initial collision.
As tiny glassy rock fragments returned through Earth's atmosphere at tremendous speeds, they heated the surrounding air and generated intense THERMAL RADIATION.
That energy could then radiate downward toward the planet's surface.
Imagine standing outside on what appeared to be an ordinary Cretaceous day.
Then, following an asteroid impact thousands of miles away, the sky begins radiating an extraordinary amount of heat.
Not because the asteroid landed anywhere near you.
But because material blasted into space was now returning through the atmosphere.
And here's what makes Lacovara's explanation even more fascinating.
On JULY 28, 2026, researchers published a NEW STUDY in the JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH examining this exact phenomenon.
Their findings suggested that the asteroid's returning debris may have been FAR MORE DEADLY than some earlier models predicted.
The researchers proposed that enormous quantities of FINE DUST accumulated in the atmosphere.
That dust could have trapped heat that would otherwise escape toward space, increasing the thermal radiation directed back toward Earth's surface.
The result?
A potentially LETHAL HEAT PULSE capable of devastating exposed life and igniting widespread fires.
The researchers' model estimated that unsheltered organisms could have experienced thermal exposure equivalent to approximately 17 TIMES a lethal human reference dose.
That figure is based on modeling and an imperfect comparison with human thermal-injury thresholds. It’s not a direct measurement of dinosaur exposure.
But the implication is extraordinary.
Lead researcher BRANDON JOHNSON, a planetary scientist at PURDUE UNIVERSITY, suggested that the conditions could potentially have killed exposed organisms within the FIRST HOUR OR TWO.
And that brings us to the most shocking part of Lacovara's argument.
He believes many of the enormous dinosaurs roaming Earth's surface may have had virtually NO WAY TO ESCAPE.
They couldn't simply crawl underground.
They couldn't easily shelter beneath deep water.
And their enormous bodies would have made finding adequate protection extraordinarily difficult.
IMPORTANT NOTES: Smaller animals capable of sheltering in BURROWS, UNDERGROUND CAVITIES or WATER may have had a significant survival advantage.
But there is an important scientific debate here.
Scientists agree that the Chicxulub impact caused a catastrophic mass extinction that eliminated approximately 75% OF EARTH'S SPECIES.
The precise role and worldwide intensity of the immediate heat pulse remain contested.
Some research supports widespread lethal heating and fires, while other models predict substantial geographical differences.
1
155
Joe Rogan goes off on low quality American food with UFC superstar Paddy Pimblett and says that some of the chocolate in America is fake and grown in a lab:
PADDY: “I only get fat when I’m in America.”
ROGAN: “We have terrible food in America. Our food tastes great, but it’s poison. It's just filled with sugar, preservatives, and all kinds of sh*t that keeps you eating it. It makes you addicted to it, but it's not good for you.”
CONTEXT: Pimblett describes America's enormous restaurant portions and UNLIMITED COCA-COLA REFILLS as part of the reason he struggles to control his eating when he's visiting.
But Rogan argues there's a much larger problem with how certain American foods are manufactured.
He believes they're engineered to taste so good that people KEEP EATING THEM, even when they've already had enough.
And some of the scientific research surrounding ULTRA-PROCESSED FOODS gives this debate a fascinating dimension.
IMPORTANT NOTES: In AUGUST 2025, the CDC released a nationwide analysis examining how much ultra-processed food Americans were consuming.
The findings?
55% OF ALL CALORIES consumed by Americans aged 1 and older came from ULTRA-PROCESSED FOODS during August 2021–August 2023.
For AMERICAN CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS ages 1–18?
An astonishing 61.9% OF THEIR DAILY CALORIES came from ultra-processed foods.
That's nearly TWO-THIRDS of their entire caloric intake.
And these weren't just obvious junk foods like candy and soda.
The CDC identified several major sources, including:
BURGERS AND OTHER SANDWICHES.
SWEET BAKED GOODS.
PIZZA.
SALTY SNACKS.
SUGAR-SWEETENED DRINKS.
But here's an even more revealing experiment.
In 2019, researchers at the NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH conducted a controlled study examining how people respond to ultra-processed foods.
Twenty adults spent four weeks at the NIH Clinical Center.
For two weeks, they ate an ULTRA-PROCESSED DIET.
For the other two weeks, they ate a MINIMALLY PROCESSED DIET.
The researchers designed both diets to provide comparable amounts of calories, sugar, fat, fiber and other major nutrients.
Participants were allowed to eat as much or as little as they wanted.
And the results were remarkable.
On the ULTRA-PROCESSED DIET, participants consumed approximately 500 ADDITIONAL CALORIES EVERY SINGLE DAY.
They also ate FASTER.
And they gained an average of TWO POUNDS in just TWO WEEKS.
On the minimally processed diet, they LOST approximately the same amount of weight.
The experiment was relatively small, but it provided direct evidence that certain ultra-processed diets can encourage OVERCONSUMPTION.
The researchers did not establish that every food additive is addictive or that all packaged foods are unhealthy.
But the findings help explain why Rogan and Pimblett's conversation resonates with so many people.
Then the discussion turns to another familiar American-versus-British argument.
CHOCOLATE.
And there's a real regulatory distinction behind that observation.
In the United States, the FDA has specific legal standards determining what products can be labeled MILK CHOCOLATE.
But certain chocolate-flavored confectionery coatings use VEGETABLE FATS in place of some traditional cocoa-derived ingredients and fall under different labeling standards.
That doesn't mean American chocolate is literally grown in a laboratory or that every American chocolate bar is fake.
It means the ingredients and legal definitions can differ significantly between products.
And it raises a broader question about what consumers actually prioritize when buying food.
TASTE?
PRICE?
CONVENIENCE?
INGREDIENT QUALITY?
But the distinction matters.
Not all American food is ultra-processed, not all processing makes food unhealthy, and the claim that products are deliberately designed to create addiction is broader than what the research has established.
Still, the numbers from the CDC and NIH make the question worth examining.
New: Joe Rogan just found out from Gary Sinise, who’s famous for playing Lieutenant Dan in Forrest Gump, about the veteran suicide crisis and discovers a devastating stat that reveals U.S. service members and post-9/11 war veterans are about four times more likely to die from suicide than in actual combat operations:
ROGAN: “30,177 deaths by suicide among post-9/11 service members and veterans versus 7,057 U.S. military deaths in post-9/11 war operations. 4.3 times as many.”
SINISE: “They're all casualties of war.”
ROGAN: “100%.”
CONTEXT: These figures come from BROWN UNIVERSITY'S COSTS OF WAR PROJECT.
In JUNE 2021, researcher Thomas Howard Suitt published a study examining the extraordinary mental-health toll of America's wars following September 11, 2001.
Using military and veterans' records, the study estimated:
30,177 SUICIDE DEATHS among active-duty service members and veterans of the post-9/11 wars.
7,057 U.S. MILITARY DEATHS in post-9/11 war operations.
The researchers identified several factors potentially contributing to the crisis:
Traumatic brain injuries from explosions.
Post-traumatic stress and repeated exposure to combat.
The difficulty of transitioning back into civilian life.
Social isolation, chronic pain, military culture, and other psychological and social pressures.
The comparison does NOT mean every suicide was caused by combat, and the two figures measure different categories of deaths.
But the scale of the problem is extraordinary.
And here's what makes the conversation especially relevant TODAY.
On SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, the Department of Veterans Affairs released its newest NATIONAL VETERAN SUICIDE PREVENTION REPORT.
It found that 6,488 AMERICAN VETERANS died by suicide in 2024 alone.
That's approximately 18 VETERANS EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Even more concerning?
The VA reported that 62% of veterans who died by suicide in 2024 had NOT received VA healthcare during the year they died or the preceding year.
These newer numbers cover veterans from ALL service eras, not just the post-9/11 generation.
But they demonstrate that the broader crisis continues.
And this is precisely why Gary Sinise has dedicated so much of his life to supporting America's military families.
IMPORTANT NOTES: Through the GARY SINISE FOUNDATION, he helps wounded veterans, first responders, and families who have lost loved ones.
His foundation's SNOWBALL EXPRESS program provides year-round support for the children and surviving spouses of fallen military heroes.
Because behind these statistics are real families.
Parents who lost their children.
Spouses who lost their partners.
Children who will grow up without their mothers or fathers.
And fellow service members who carry the memory of friends they couldn't save.
It's a reminder that the human consequences of military service can continue long after someone returns home.
And although the VA has reported some encouraging improvements in suicide-prevention outcomes, thousands of veterans are still dying each year.
Joe Rogan was in utter disappointment when former White House adviser Calley Means claimed that Chief of Staff Susie Wiles personally stopped an initiative investigating the effects of sugar in children's food because she needed money from the sugar industry for the midterm elections:
MEANS: “We did a 60 Minutes, we got full White House approval. We went through the interagency process, and we were going to do a big initiative on basic food safety, asking whether the amount of sugar in a children's diet was appropriate. Susie told me, we can't do that. I need the sugar industry money for midterms.”
ROGAN: “Okay the midterms are over so now what?”
CONTEXT: On February 15, 2026, CBS's 60 MINUTES aired an investigation featuring former FDA Commissioner DAVID KESSLER and Health Secretary ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.
The two men came from very different political backgrounds but found common ground over concerns about ULTRA-PROCESSED FOODS.
Kessler, who previously helped lead the government's fight against the TOBACCO INDUSTRY, was now challenging how the FDA evaluates ingredients widely used in America's food supply.
His target?
The FDA's longstanding GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS SAFE (GRAS) framework.
Kessler petitioned the agency to reconsider the safety status of CORN SYRUP and dozens of other processed sweeteners and starches.
And Kennedy publicly said the FDA would examine the petition.
The concern was that certain ingredients could remain widely used without the kind of comprehensive independent review Kessler believed was necessary.
But here's the crucial detail.
According to Means, the White House initiative he was preparing wasn't even supposed to be an immediate REGULATORY CRACKDOWN.
It was an effort to ask fundamental scientific questions about the effects of high levels of sugar and refined carbohydrates in CHILDREN'S DIETS.
Means says the initiative had already passed the interagency approval process before Wiles stopped it.
And he alleges her explanation was explicitly political:
THE ADMINISTRATION NEEDED SUGAR INDUSTRY MONEY TO WIN THE MIDTERMS.
That alleged conversation has NOT been independently verified.
But the underlying public-health debate is very real.
CBS reported that ultra-processed foods account for roughly 60% of the calories consumed by American children.
And federal dietary guidance has long identified excessive added-sugar consumption, particularly from sweetened beverages, as an important nutritional concern.
Then something extraordinary happened politically.
IMPORTANT NOTES: On NOVEMBER 3, Republicans lost control of BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS.
Three days later, Trump announced that SUSIE WILES would leave her position as White House chief of staff, with STEPHEN MILLER taking over.
And on NOVEMBER 8, Means appeared on CBS's FACE THE NATION and repeated his broader allegations about corporate influence obstructing health policies.
He also claimed that a separate effort to establish a federal definition of ultra-processed foods encountered intense industry lobbying and was delayed after the proposal had progressed through an interagency review.
The White House denies that outside interests control administration policy.
Wiles has defended the administration's health-policy achievements, while several other officials have disputed Means' broader accusations.
None of those developments independently establishes that Wiles made the specific statement Means attributes to her, or that sugar-industry donations caused the proposed initiative to be stopped.
But Means is raising a consequential question about the relationship between public-health policy and campaign fundraising.
He says an initiative intended to examine what American children consume was put on hold because of concerns about losing political money.
Joe Rogan just hosted his most important episode ever after Republicans lost the midterms as White House insider Calley Means just exposed the real people who are running Trump’s presidency and lists key inner circle names like Susie Wiles, Jame Blair, Richard Walters, and the most powerful lobbying firm known as Ballard Partners:
MEANS: “Susie Wiles is the most powerful chief of staff in modern American history. She has taken a stranglehold on any policy decision. No policy decision gets done without her office giving it the okay. She was one of the top lobbyists in the country. It is impossible to describe to you how demonic this culture is.”
CONTEXT: Means, who resigned from the administration in OCTOBER, says he witnessed an extraordinary concentration of power inside the White House.
He alleges that cabinet secretaries and senior officials spent enormous amounts of time attempting to win favor with Wiles' office because of its influence over which policies could advance.
He then identifies several people he believes were central to that power structure:
SUSIE WILES: White House chief of staff.
JAMES BLAIR: A longtime Trump political strategist and former deputy White House chief of staff.
RICHARD WALTERS: Deputy White House chief of staff and longtime Republican political operative.
WALKER BARRETT: Senior White House adviser with extensive congressional experience.
But the most consequential part of his accusation concerns the CORPORATE LOBBYING INDUSTRY.
Before entering Trump's White House, Wiles had a career representing corporate clients, including working at the influential Washington lobbying firm BALLARD PARTNERS.
And the money involved in that industry is staggering.
According to federal lobbying disclosures, Ballard Partners collected approximately $88 MILLION in lobbying revenue during 2025, more than QUADRUPLING its reported revenue from 2024.
That made Ballard one of the highest-earning lobbying operations in Washington.
And in MAY 2025, the watchdog organization Public Citizen identified SIX FORMER WILES CLIENTS that had reported lobbying White House offices during the administration's first three months.
Those clients included companies involved in tobacco, automobiles, fertilizer, and other major industries.
The White House disputed suggestions of improper influence and said Wiles generally did not participate in meetings or decisions involving former clients.
Those disclosures establish real corporate lobbying relationships.
They do NOT, by themselves, prove that Wiles improperly favored those companies or directed policies for their benefit.
But Means argues that the broader culture of Washington is precisely what Trump promised to confront.
Now consider the extraordinary political timing.
IMPORTANT NOTES: On NOVEMBER 3, Democrats won control of BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS in a sweeping midterm defeat for Republicans.
And TODAY, NOVEMBER 6, Trump announced that Susie Wiles will leave the chief-of-staff position, with Stephen Miller taking over on November 9.
Trump PRAISED Wiles for her service and said she would continue working for his political operation.
Whoops accidentally posted another banger on @TheNewsBuffetX
More inside info released on President Trump being left in the dark regarding a massive glyphosate and Roundup scandal.
Joe Rogan just had on White House insider Calley Means who says President Trump had no idea his own justice department supported Roundup manufacturer Monsanto in a major supreme court battle over cancer warning lawsuits:
“The president did not know about the Department of Justice memo. He didn't know about the Supreme Court ruling on glyphosate. And he didn't know the administration supported it.”
“JESUS CHRIST.”
CONTEXT: On DECEMBER 1, 2025, the Trump administration's Justice Department formally submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in the case MONSANTO v. DURNELL.
Then, on APRIL 27, 2026, a senior DOJ attorney actually appeared before the Supreme Court and argued in SUPPORT OF MONSANTO.
The dispute involved Roundup, the widely used weedkiller containing GLYPHOSATE, and whether cancer patients could sue its manufacturer under state law for failing to warn consumers about alleged cancer risks.
One plaintiff, Missouri resident JOHN DURNELL, developed NON-HODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA after approximately 20 YEARS of using Roundup.
A jury had previously awarded him $1.25 MILLION after finding that Monsanto failed to provide an adequate warning.
But on JUNE 25, 2026, the SUPREME COURT ruled 7–2 in Monsanto's favor.
The Court determined that federal pesticide-labeling law barred the particular state-law failure-to-warn claim because the EPA-approved label did not require a cancer warning.
The decision potentially affects THOUSANDS of similar lawsuits.
And there's an especially surprising detail about the justices.
The TWO DISSENTERS were liberal Justice KETANJI BROWN JACKSON and conservative Justice NEIL GORSUCH, who disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal labeling law.
The ruling did NOT grant Monsanto blanket immunity from every cancer-related lawsuit.
But it significantly restricted an important legal pathway used by people alleging they developed cancer after exposure to Roundup.
And the scientific controversy surrounding glyphosate remains unresolved.
The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION'S International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as PROBABLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS in 2015.
Meanwhile, the EPA has maintained that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer under approved conditions of use, while continuing to reassess the evidence.
But here's another twist.
IMPORTANT NOTES: On FEBRUARY 18, 2026, Trump personally signed an EXECUTIVE ORDER supporting domestic production of glyphosate-based herbicides, citing national security and America's agricultural supply chains.
That order was separate from the Supreme Court litigation.
It does NOT establish that Trump personally knew about the Justice Department's legal filings or the eventual ruling.
And that's the distinction at the center of Means' allegation.
The administration's support for Monsanto is documented in official Supreme Court records.
Trump's supposed lack of awareness and his reported reaction come from Means' account of a private meeting and have not been independently confirmed.
The administration has defended its broader Make America Healthy Again record, while agricultural groups have argued that glyphosate remains important to American farmers.
But Means believes the episode demonstrates how consequential government decisions can move forward without the president fully understanding what his own officials are doing.
🚨NEW: Joe Rogan just had on America’s best cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough who believes that Joe Biden’s aggressive prostate cancer is actually a vaccine turbo cancer:
MCCULLOUGH: “He's publicly taken six vaccines. I don't think Joe Biden has long to live.”
ROGAN: “Well, he's old anyway. I mean, there's that. He is obviously not healthy.”
CONTEXT: On MAY 18, 2025, Biden's office announced that the former president had been diagnosed with an AGGRESSIVE form of PROSTATE CANCER that had already spread to his BONES.
His reported Gleason score was 9 out of 10, placing the cancer among the most aggressive categories of prostate tumors.
His physicians also reported that the disease appeared HORMONE-SENSITIVE, meaning treatments that suppress or block testosterone could help control its progression.
And there's an important distinction between what doctors established and what McCullough is now alleging.
McCullough believes Biden's cancer is related to COVID vaccination.
But the NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE states that there is NO EVIDENCE COVID VACCINES CAUSE CANCER, cause existing cancers to return, or accelerate their progression.
And “TURBO CANCER” is not a recognized medical diagnosis.
In fact, McCullough was making essentially the SAME accusation back in MAY 2025, immediately after Biden's diagnosis became public.
At the time, cancer specialists interviewed by PolitiFact explained that highly aggressive prostate cancers existed LONG BEFORE COVID VACCINES.
IMPORTANT NOTES: A Gleason score of 9 describes how abnormal and aggressive the cancer cells appear under a microscope.
It does NOT establish when the cancer began developing or identify what caused it.
Then McCullough takes the conversation another step further.
He suggests Biden may have a neurological condition associated with vaccination, comparing his perceived symptoms to features of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.
But McCullough does not establish a confirmed neurological diagnosis or provide clinical evidence linking Biden's condition to COVID vaccines.
That distinction matters.
Biden's aggressive cancer is documented.
McCullough's proposed explanation for its cause is NOT.
And the fact that a person received vaccinations before a cancer diagnosis does not establish that those vaccinations caused the disease.
The most extraordinary part of this exchange may be how confidently McCullough connects multiple serious medical concerns to the same alleged cause.
He isn't merely asking whether a possible connection should be investigated.
He's publicly identifying a former U.S. PRESIDENT as a supposed example of a vaccine-related cancer syndrome that mainstream cancer medicine does not recognize.
Joe Rogan just had on the top cardiologist in the world Dr. Peter McCullough who exposed that Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin’s near fatal collapse during an NFL game on Monday Night Football was from vaccine myocarditis and not from an injury from the tackle:
MCCULLOUGH: “When you have a football helmet and there's a breastplate, there's no way that can precipitate a cardiac arrest. It's never happened in the history of pro football ever. So I knew it wasn't the tackle.”
CONTEXT: McCullough insists the January 2, 2023 incident was a case of vaccine-related inflammation of the heart muscle.
But there's a MAJOR problem with that explanation.
On April 18, 2023, Hamlin publicly announced that his doctors had diagnosed him with COMMOTIO CORDIS.
That's an extremely rare but well-documented condition in which a sudden blow to the chest strikes at PRECISELY THE WRONG MOMENT in the heartbeat's electrical cycle.
The impact can trigger ventricular fibrillation, a potentially fatal abnormal heart rhythm that causes the heart to stop pumping blood effectively.
And here's where the medical evidence becomes especially interesting.
McCullough argues that Hamlin's football equipment should have made such an event impossible.
But according to a 2024 expert consensus statement from the HEART RHYTHM SOCIETY, chest protectors were present in approximately ONE-THIRD of documented commotio cordis cases occurring during competitive sports.
Researchers have even documented cases in which an impact passed THROUGH protective equipment positioned over the heart.
In other words, chest protection can reduce the danger, but it does NOT eliminate the possibility of commotio cordis.
And this isn't merely a diagnosis that Hamlin mentioned once in 2023.
IMPORTANT NOTES: In a 2026 interview with TIME, Hamlin continued discussing his remarkable recovery from the condition, which nearly killed him on national television.
There's another important distinction.
The CDC acknowledges that myocarditis is a RARE but documented adverse effect of certain COVID vaccines, particularly among adolescent and young adult males.
But that DOES NOT establish that vaccine-related myocarditis caused Hamlin's cardiac arrest.
His vaccination status has not been publicly confirmed in the evidence reviewed, and McCullough provides no verified medical evidence that Hamlin suffered vaccine-induced myocarditis.
McCullough also speculates that Hamlin may have received a treatment protocol he promotes, despite providing no evidence that Hamlin ever underwent that treatment.
Meanwhile, Hamlin's survival has helped bring national attention to something with an established record of saving lives: IMMEDIATE CPR AND DEFIBRILLATION.
Doctors and emergency personnel performed CPR and used a defibrillator after Hamlin collapsed, helping save his life.
The Buffalo Bills safety eventually made an extraordinary return to professional football.
So the controversy comes down to TWO competing explanations:
McCullough says the chest impact couldn't have caused the arrest and insists vaccine myocarditis was responsible.
Hamlin says his own doctors diagnosed a rare cardiac event CAUSED BY A BLOW TO THE CHEST.
The News Buffet posts yet another banger @TheNewsBuffetX
A lot of people are wondering if after last nights election results America’s empire is headed towards a collapse.
Dr. Madden breaks down the 7 exact signs that signal an empire is falling 👇
New: Shawn Ryan just had on Roman Historian Dr. Thomas Madden who revealed the 7 warnings signs that an empire is about to fall and whether or not the United States is starting to show any of those signs:
1. Government officials defying Supreme Court orders.
2. Elections being unlawfully suspended.
3. Real violence between government officials for political purposes.
4. Political parties operating paramilitary forces.
5. Prosecution lists and political enemies being seized or killed without trial.
6. The military officially endorsing political candidates.
7. The military occupying the capital and expelling the elected government.
RYAN: “How many of these signs is America currently showing?”
MADDEN: “I don’t think any of them are showing yet.”
CONTEXT: Madden, a historian at Saint Louis University and author of The Fall of Republics, studies how governments such as ancient Rome's lost their republican systems.
And one of the most striking lessons from Roman history is that the republic didn't collapse overnight.
It took generations of escalating political violence, broken institutional restraints and military intervention before one-man rule replaced the old system.
Madden has developed what he calls his “scorecard for a broken republic.”
He immediately identifies the first warning sign as a particularly serious danger.
“I'm always worried about the first one, that the Supreme Court would be ignored.”
“Once that happens, you will go down that path of just pure power.”
“As soon as you discount the courts, you've lost a major safeguard of the Constitution.”
Here's why that warning has historical significance.
IMPORTANT NOTES: In 133 BC, Roman politician Tiberius Gracchus was killed by senators and their supporters during a violent political confrontation.
Decades later, the Roman general Sulla marched on Rome and used PROSCRIPTION LISTS to identify political enemies who could be hunted down and killed.
In 49 BC, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army, setting off another civil war.
By 27 BC, Augustus had established the political order we associate with imperial Rome.
The transformation from republican government to imperial rule unfolded over more than a century.
And America's founders deliberately designed a different constitutional system, dividing power among Congress, the presidency and an independent judiciary.
But there's one critical limitation to judicial power.
Courts can issue binding rulings, but they ultimately depend on other branches of government to carry those decisions out.
Madden's conclusion that America has not crossed his seven thresholds is his historical assessment, not a universally accepted measurement of the country's political health.
He does not claim that America is free from political violence, polarization or constitutional tensions.
Instead, he warns that institutional breakdown can begin when people gradually become comfortable accepting exceptions to rules that once seemed untouchable.
2
4
15,665
New: Joe Rogan reveals to comedian Sam Tallent that the real reason Israel restricts DNA ancestry testing is because most of the people over there aren’t Semites and are actually just European Jews:
ROGAN: “The real Semites are the Palestinians. Benjamin Netanyahu’s family is from Poland.”
CONTEXT: Israel does have restrictions on DNA testing.
According to Israel's Ministry of Health, paternity and family-relationship DNA tests generally require a COURT ORDER, even when everyone involved consents.
And there's an especially surprising detail.
MyHeritage, an ancestry-testing company HEADQUARTERED IN ISRAEL that offers DNA kits internationally, explicitly lists ISRAEL among the countries where its consumer ancestry tests are unavailable.
But that does NOT establish Rogan's allegation about WHY these restrictions exist.
Israel's genetic-information laws address matters including consent, family relationships, privacy, and potential consequences for children.
There is no substantiated evidence that the restrictions were created to conceal the ethnic origins of Israel's Jewish population.
And when Rogan brings up Netanyahu's Polish family roots, he's referencing something with a documented historical basis.
Netanyahu's father, Benzion Netanyahu, was born in WARSAW in 1910, before his family immigrated to what was then British Mandatory Palestine.
But European family history doesn't automatically mean someone has no ancient Middle Eastern ancestry.
In fact, scientific research reveals a much more complicated story.
IMPORTANT NOTES: A major genetic study published in NATURE in 2010 found evidence connecting many Jewish diaspora communities to shared ancestral origins in the LEVANT.
And a 2020 study published in CELL examined ancient DNA from Bronze Age populations in the region.
Researchers found substantial genetic continuity between ancient Levantine populations and multiple populations living in the region today, including Jewish and Arab communities.
In other words, the evidence points to a history of shared regional ancestry, migrations, and intermixing. It’s not a simple genetic division between two populations.
Then Rogan takes the discussion even further.
He questions whether the term ANTISEMITISM should instead be called “anti-Jewish,” arguing that Palestinians have a stronger claim to being called Semites.
But there's another important historical distinction.
“Semitic” originally refers to a LANGUAGE FAMILY that includes Hebrew and Arabic, not a scientifically defined genetic race.
And the word “antisemitism,” despite its linguistic roots, has historically referred specifically to hostility or prejudice toward JEWISH PEOPLE.
New drops posted on @TheNewsBuffetX
We finally have the guy who figured out how to determine if and when an Empire will fall.
New: Shawn Ryan just had on Roman Historian Dr. Thomas Madden who revealed the 7 warnings signs that an empire is about to fall and whether or not the United States is starting to show any of those signs:
1. Government officials defying Supreme Court orders.
2. Elections being unlawfully suspended.
3. Real violence between government officials for political purposes.
4. Political parties operating paramilitary forces.
5. Prosecution lists and political enemies being seized or killed without trial.
6. The military officially endorsing political candidates.
7. The military occupying the capital and expelling the elected government.
RYAN: “How many of these signs is America currently showing?”
MADDEN: “I don’t think any of them are showing yet.”
CONTEXT: Madden, a historian at Saint Louis University and author of The Fall of Republics, studies how governments such as ancient Rome's lost their republican systems.
And one of the most striking lessons from Roman history is that the republic didn't collapse overnight.
It took generations of escalating political violence, broken institutional restraints and military intervention before one-man rule replaced the old system.
Madden has developed what he calls his “scorecard for a broken republic.”
He immediately identifies the first warning sign as a particularly serious danger.
“I'm always worried about the first one, that the Supreme Court would be ignored.”
“Once that happens, you will go down that path of just pure power.”
“As soon as you discount the courts, you've lost a major safeguard of the Constitution.”
Here's why that warning has historical significance.
IMPORTANT NOTES: In 133 BC, Roman politician Tiberius Gracchus was killed by senators and their supporters during a violent political confrontation.
Decades later, the Roman general Sulla marched on Rome and used PROSCRIPTION LISTS to identify political enemies who could be hunted down and killed.
In 49 BC, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army, setting off another civil war.
By 27 BC, Augustus had established the political order we associate with imperial Rome.
The transformation from republican government to imperial rule unfolded over more than a century.
And America's founders deliberately designed a different constitutional system, dividing power among Congress, the presidency and an independent judiciary.
But there's one critical limitation to judicial power.
Courts can issue binding rulings, but they ultimately depend on other branches of government to carry those decisions out.
Madden's conclusion that America has not crossed his seven thresholds is his historical assessment, not a universally accepted measurement of the country's political health.
He does not claim that America is free from political violence, polarization or constitutional tensions.
Instead, he warns that institutional breakdown can begin when people gradually become comfortable accepting exceptions to rules that once seemed untouchable.
2
10
21,201
Joe Rogan sounds the alarm to political commentator Konstantin Kisin about the possibility of President Trump resuming U.S. military strikes on Iran after the November 3rd Midterms:
ROGAN: “One of the rumblings I'm hearing is that after the midterms, the United States might start attacking Iran again. Things might get real ugly.”
CONTEXT: On September 2, Reuters reported that FOUR PEOPLE familiar with internal White House discussions said top Trump advisers were pushing to prevent the Iran war from escalating before the midterm elections, partly because of the political consequences.
According to those sources, the administration could consider intensifying military operations AFTER the November 3 vote.
Then, on October 8, Trump publicly announced that the United States would NOT resume military strikes against Iran before the midterms.
And the story has become even more significant TODAY, NOVEMBER 2.
The Associated Press reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is privately urging Trump to launch another wave of strikes on Iran after tomorrow's elections.
According to officials familiar with the discussions, Netanyahu pressed for military action during a weekend phone call with Trump.
But Trump has NOT committed to launching the strikes.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the administration still prefers a diplomatic solution.
Meanwhile, Qatari mediators are attempting to negotiate an agreement to ease the crisis surrounding the STRAIT OF HORMUZ, one of the world's most important shipping routes.
And the financial cost of the existing conflict is already staggering.
IMPORTANT NOTES: Reuters reported that Pentagon estimates put U.S. military spending on the Iran war at MORE THAN $47 BILLION, including billions required to replace depleted weapons and destroyed equipment.
All of this makes Rogan's warning particularly relevant as Americans prepare to vote.
The administration faces competing pressures: an ongoing military confrontation, diplomatic negotiations, regional allies demanding different outcomes, and the domestic political consequences of the war.
None of the reporting establishes that Trump has ordered another attack or that an election-related delay is the sole motivation behind military planning.
🚨NEW: Joe Rogan scares 3 grown men on Halloween as he tells Big Jay Oakerson how being an organ donor really works and that it can cost you your life because they have to take your organs out while you’re still alive:
ROGAN: “They can make a decision whether or not you live or die and they might be wrong.”
“It's just weird when someone can make a decision as to whether or not you live or die and it's the wrong decision, but you're dead and no one cares and then the hospital makes money off of it.”
CONTEXT: In JULY 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revealed the findings of a federal investigation into an organ procurement organization serving Kentucky and neighboring areas.
Investigators reviewed 351 cases in which organ donation had been authorized but ultimately NEVER COMPLETED.
Their findings:
103 CASES had concerning features.
73 PATIENTS showed neurological signs incompatible with proceeding with organ donation.
At least 28 PATIENTS may NOT have been deceased when organ procurement was initiated.
That's not an internet conspiracy theory.
Those are findings announced by the federal government.
IMPORTANT NOTES: In AUGUST 2026, HHS began decertification proceedings against the organization, Network for Hope, after additional reviews identified continuing patient-safety failures.
There's also a CRITICAL distinction that gets lost in these conversations.
Under established U.S. medical standards, deceased organ donors must be DECLARED DEAD before their organs are recovered.
Brain death is legally recognized death, even when machines temporarily maintain circulation.
A separate donation pathway allows recovery after circulation permanently ceases and death is declared.
And the medical team responsible for treating the patient is supposed to be separate from the team recovering organs.
Those safeguards exist for a reason.
The federal findings do NOT establish that organ donation routinely kills living patients, or that doctors deliberately declare people dead for profit.
But they do raise serious questions about whether every organization consistently follows the rules designed to protect vulnerable patients.
Rogan makes clear he isn't accusing specific doctors of intentionally doing this.
His fear is what happens when the system gets it WRONG.
Joe Rogan just told comedian Colum Tyrrell that he loves Jewish people, but admits that they have a blind spot when it comes to the truth about Israel:
ROGAN: “Jewish people refuse to say this is a genocide. They come up with reasons they had to bomb those buildings. They refuse to condemn it.”
TYRRELL: “I’m kind of over it now. I wish Israel would just hurry up and wipe them off so we can move on.”
CONTEXT: Just THREE DAYS AGO, a United Nations investigative commission published another major report accusing Israel of continuing to commit GENOCIDE in Gaza.
And the findings went considerably further.
On October 26, 2026, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry reported that Israeli authorities and security forces had continued committing genocidal acts even after the October 2025 ceasefire.
The commission also concluded that Israeli forces had committed crimes against humanity in the occupied West Bank, including extermination, persecution and torture.
Israel categorically rejected the findings, describing the report as misinformation intended to demonize the country.
But here's where the story becomes especially interesting.
The accusations aren't coming exclusively from Palestinians, foreign governments or international institutions.
They're also coming from INSIDE ISRAEL.
On July 28, 2025, two prominent ISRAELI human-rights organizations released reports accusing their own government of committing genocide in Gaza.
One was B'Tselem.
The other was Physicians for Human Rights-Israel.
B'Tselem concluded that Israel was pursuing policies intended to destroy Palestinian society in Gaza.
Physicians for Human Rights-Israel documented the destruction of Gaza's healthcare system and argued that the evidence met the legal criteria for genocide.
Think about that.
Two organizations operating inside Israel publicly accused their own government of one of the gravest crimes recognized under international law.
Their conclusions remain contested.
And the International Court of Justice has NOT issued a final ruling determining whether Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
The case brought by South Africa remains ongoing.
But the existence of these Israeli organizations raises an important distinction in Rogan's argument.
JEWISH IDENTITY, SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL, AND SUPPORT FOR THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Jewish people hold widely different political views about Israel, Gaza, the war and the accusations against the Israeli government.
Some strongly defend Israel's military actions.
Others openly condemn them.
And some Israeli human-rights organizations have gone as far as accusing their own government of genocide.
That makes Rogan's observation about people he personally knows much more specific than a claim about Jewish people generally.
He's describing what he believes happens when personal identity becomes so closely connected to a country that criticizing its government becomes emotionally difficult.
And there's another fascinating element to this conversation.
Rogan is speaking with Irish comedian Colum Tyrrell.
IRELAND has been one of Europe's most outspoken supporters of Palestinian statehood.
IMPORTANT NOTES: On May 28, 2024, Ireland formally recognized the State of Palestine alongside Spain and Norway.
The Irish government described the decision as an effort to preserve the possibility of two states existing peacefully alongside one another.
And Tyrrell explains that Irish sympathy for Palestinians is partly rooted in the country's historical identification with oppressed or disadvantaged peoples.
But the real disagreement at the center of Rogan's comments is bigger than Ireland or any individual person's identity.
It's about whether someone's emotional attachment to a country can interfere with their willingness to criticize what that country's government is doing.
New: Joe Rogan exposes the dirty secret of the Polio epidemic with comedian Jimmy Carr and claims that widespread DDT pesticide spraying might’ve been the real cause behind the Polio like symptoms:
ROGAN: “95% of people who get Polio have no symptoms.”
“They were spraying DDT everywhere and it gives you the same symptoms as polio. Polio went away when they stopped spraying DDT everywhere. Why? Because it's f*cking DDT poisoning.”
CONTEXT: AMERICA REALLY DID SPRAY DDT THROUGHOUT ENTIRE COMMUNITIES.
During the 1940s and 1950s, pesticides were sprayed in residential neighborhoods, agricultural areas and public spaces.
And DDT wasn't harmless.
It was a persistent chemical capable of affecting the human nervous system.
Severe poisoning could produce tremors, confusion, seizures and other neurological symptoms.
But there's a remarkable piece of history almost nobody talks about.
SOME AMERICAN COMMUNITIES WERE ACTUALLY SPRAYING DDT TO FIGHT POLIO.
That's right.
They believed the pesticide might help STOP the disease.
Medical historian Elena Conis documented how public-health officials used DDT in the 1940s and early 1950s because researchers suspected that flies might play a role in spreading poliovirus.
Authorities attempted to kill those insects before they could potentially spread the disease.
The problem?
THE STRATEGY DIDN'T WORK.
Poliovirus primarily spreads through contact with infected people, including exposure to contaminated fecal material.
DDT didn't eliminate the virus.
Yet communities continued spraying as officials desperately searched for ways to stop terrifying outbreaks that were paralyzing children.
And this brings us to the biggest problem with Rogan's theory.
THE DATES DON'T LINE UP.
Consider this timeline.
1894:
The United States experiences its first documented polio epidemic in Vermont.
1916:
A devastating nationwide polio epidemic produces more than 27,000 reported cases.
All of this happened DECADES before DDT became widely used in America.
Then comes the 1950s.
1952:
More than 21,000 cases of PARALYTIC POLIO are reported in the United States.
1955:
The first effective polio vaccine is introduced.
1959:
American DDT usage reaches approximately 80 MILLION POUNDS.
Think about that.
DDT use peaked FOUR YEARS AFTER the introduction of the polio vaccine.
Then something extraordinary happens.
1965:
Reported paralytic polio cases have fallen to just 61 nationwide.
That's a decline of more than 99% compared with the 1952 peak.
But DDT was STILL LEGAL.
The federal government's broad ban on DDT wouldn't take effect until the end of 1972.
SEVEN YEARS LATER.
And the last known case of wild poliovirus acquired in the United States occurred in 1979.
So the documented historical timeline doesn't support the claim that America's polio epidemic disappeared because DDT spraying stopped.
The dramatic decline followed mass vaccination, while DDT was still being widely used.
And there's another major scientific distinction.
DDT poisoning and paralytic polio are NOT medically identical.
DDT toxicity can cause serious nervous-system disturbances, including tremors and seizures.
Paralytic polio results from a viral infection that damages motor neurons and can produce acute flaccid paralysis.
Some neurological illnesses can share symptoms.
But similar symptoms don't establish identical causes.
And polio isn't simply a diagnosis invented to explain unexplained paralysis.
Scientists identified its viral cause in 1908.
Poliovirus can be isolated and detected in laboratory specimens.
Now here's another important detail Rogan raises.
MOST PEOPLE INFECTED WITH POLIOVIRUS NEVER DEVELOP PARALYSIS.
IMPORTANT NOTES: According to the CDC:
Approximately 70% of childhood poliovirus infections produce NO SYMPTOMS.
Another approximately 24% produce a relatively mild illness.
Only a small fraction develop paralytic disease.
But that's not evidence against poliovirus causing polio.
Joe Rogan gets into a back and forth argument with his producer Jamie over whether or not this clip of a man getting struck by lighting twice in the same day is real or fake:
ROGAN: “Shut the f*ck up Jamie. This one is real!”
CONTEXT: You can watch the clip for yourself and tell us if you’re a believer or not.
Here's where this gets even funnier:
THE VIDEO IS FROM 2011.
And lightning experts have been questioning whether it's FAKE for FIFTEEN YEARS.
The footage supposedly comes from a security camera.
A man is walking down a street during a thunderstorm.
Suddenly, an enormous bolt of lightning appears to hit him.
HE COLLAPSES.
He lies motionless on the pavement for roughly a minute.
Then, somehow, he gets back up.
Starts walking again.
AND GETS STRUCK A SECOND TIME.
He collapses AGAIN.
And somehow gets up AGAIN.
Sounds impossible, right?
Well, in April 2011, Live Science consulted several lightning researchers who examined the footage.
And they noticed something VERY suspicious.
Each lightning flash appeared in only ONE FRAME of the video.
According to lightning physicist Bill Rison, a genuine nighttime lightning strike would likely overwhelm the camera sensor, producing an intense white flash across multiple frames.
But that wasn't happening.
Another researcher pointed out that nearby trees and a bus appeared more likely to be struck than the man.
And the footage lacked convincing evidence that a real lightning event had occurred.
Then, in 2019, independent fact-checkers at Full Fact took another look.
They noticed another suspicious detail:
THE LIGHTNING DIDN'T APPEAR TO CHANGE THE SURROUNDING SHADOWS.
In other words, the enormous flashes supposedly illuminating the street weren't producing the lighting changes you'd expect from an actual lightning strike.
Full Fact concluded the footage was MOST LIKELY FAKE.
But here's the twist.
The idea of somebody being struck by lightning multiple times is NOT impossible.
IMPORTANT NOTES: According to the CDC, nearly 90% of lightning-strike victims survive.
And the record for surviving lightning strikes?
SEVEN.
A Virginia park ranger named Roy Sullivan survived seven separate lightning strikes over his lifetime.
SEVEN!
But those incidents occurred across multiple decades.
That's very different from supposedly being struck twice within moments and casually walking away.
And there's another important distinction.
The CDC's survival statistic includes different kinds of lightning injuries.
It doesn't mean somebody has a 90% chance of surviving a direct strike like the ones shown in this video.
So the science gives us two completely different conclusions.
Can the same person get struck by lightning more than once?
ABSOLUTELY.
Is this particular viral video authentic?
The available expert analysis strongly suggests it isn't.
Which makes the exchange between Rogan and Jamie even better.
Rogan is absolutely CONVINCED he's watching one of the most unbelievable survival stories in human history.
Jamie doesn't buy it.
And the video has been circulating online for fifteen years despite experts identifying signs of editing almost immediately.
Joe Rogan reveals he received strange emails back in 2017 that actually ended up being invitations to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island:
KURT METZGER: “You missed out bro. You could’ve had a great time. You were very rude when that man was kind enough to invite you.”
CONTEXT: THE EMAILS ARE REAL.
And they've now been released as part of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
In September 2017, Epstein contacted a theoretical physicist named LAWRENCE KRAUSS.
Why Krauss?
Because earlier that year, Krauss had appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience.
Epstein apparently watched the appearance and decided he wanted to meet Rogan.
His request was remarkably casual:
“Can you introduce me? I think he's funny.”
That's it.
One of the world's most notorious sex offenders was trying to get an introduction to one of the world's biggest podcasters because he found him entertaining.
And Krauss actually agreed to try.
On September 25, 2017, the physicist told Epstein he would reach out to Rogan or his producer.
But here's where things get strange.
A few days later, Krauss reported that the introduction wasn't going particularly well.
He apologized to Epstein and described Rogan as:
“More timid than I would have thought.”
MORE TIMID?!
By September 2017, Jeffrey Epstein's criminal history was ALREADY PUBLIC.
He had pleaded guilty in Florida back in 2008 to prostitution-related offenses, including procuring a minor for prostitution.
He had served approximately 13 months in custody.
And he was required to register as a sex offender.
So when Epstein tried to get introduced to Rogan in 2017, this wasn't some completely unknown businessman whose criminal history would only be uncovered years later.
His conviction was already NINE YEARS OLD.
Yet Epstein was still cultivating relationships with prominent scientists, public intellectuals, wealthy businessmen and influential media personalities.
And Krauss was apparently willing to help introduce another one.
That's the part of this story that deserves more attention.
How was a man with that criminal record still able to maintain connections in such influential circles?
Fast-forward to FEBRUARY 2026.
Rogan publicly addressed the emails after they surfaced in the released Epstein files.
He told Cheryl Hines that Epstein had been trying to meet him through a former podcast guest.
And Rogan said he wanted absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
Especially after he searched Epstein's name online.
He described his reaction to the proposed meeting in characteristically blunt terms:
“Bitch, are you high?”
Rogan said meeting Epstein was never something he would have seriously considered.
And the released correspondence is consistent with the introduction going nowhere.
There's no documented meeting between Rogan and Epstein in the correspondence examined by reporters.
But here's an important distinction in the island jokes from the new podcast conversation.
IMPORTANT NOTES: The publicly reported 2017 email exchange establishes that EPSTEIN WANTED AN INTRODUCTION TO ROGAN.
It does NOT establish that Rogan received an invitation to visit Epstein's private island.
Those are two very different claims.
And the difference matters because an attempted introduction does not establish any wrongdoing by the person being approached.
The emails are significant for a different reason entirely.
They show how Epstein was still trying to expand his social network almost a decade after his conviction.
He wasn't simply contacting people who were already friends.
He was asking existing acquaintances to connect him with MORE influential figures.
And he was apparently using a respected physicist as the intermediary.
Joe Rogan tells comedians Duncan Trussell and Kurt Metzger that a 14 year old boy having sex with a 40 year old woman isn’t as big of a deal compared to a 40 year old man who has sex with a 14 year old girl:
TRUSSELL: “It’s still f*cked up if it’s a young boy.”
ROGAN: “A little bit, but whatever. She sucked his *ick. Who cares.”
CONTEXT: The double standard Rogan is describing isn't just a hypothetical cultural observation.
Researchers have actually tested it.
In a 2024 study, 525 participants evaluated hypothetical cases of sexual misconduct between teachers and students.
Researchers found that cases involving BOYS were perceived as more “normal” than comparable cases involving GIRLS.
They also found some evidence of leniency toward female teachers, although the gender differences did not appear across every measure.
And this wasn't the first study to uncover that pattern.
In 2011, researchers presented 187 adults with fictional news reports describing teacher-student sexual misconduct.
When the teacher initiated the encounter, participants judged MALE TEACHERS more harshly than FEMALE TEACHERS.
They also believed male students received greater social benefits from the encounter.
Think about what that implies.
Two adults can abuse their positions of authority over minors.
But changing the genders can change how observers interpret the exact same kind of misconduct.
And that has consequences far beyond internet jokes.
Because there's a dangerous assumption underneath the idea that a teenage boy should feel lucky:
THAT BOYS ARE AUTOMATICALLY LESS VULNERABLE TO SEXUAL ABUSE.
The CDC estimates that at least 1 IN 20 BOYS in the United States experiences sexual abuse before turning 18.
And approximately 90% of childhood sexual abuse involves somebody already known and trusted by the child or their family.
But here's the most revealing scientific finding.
In 2023, researchers examined data from 3,351 people who contacted a German sexual-abuse helpline.
They compared the reported mental-health consequences of childhood abuse committed by women versus men.
Their finding?
The overall quantity of reported mental-health difficulties was SIMILAR.
The patterns of difficulties differed, and the sample wasn't representative of all survivors, but it directly challenges the idea that abuse by women is necessarily harmless.
Another 2023 study examined the accounts of 212 people who survived childhood sexual abuse by women.
Survivors described an additional problem:
NOT BEING BELIEVED.
Some reported receiving less recognition, less support and more dismissive reactions because their abuser was female.
That's an entirely different dimension of harm.
Imagine experiencing something traumatic as a child, then growing up in a culture that tells you the experience was supposed to be enjoyable.
That you were lucky.
That other boys would have wanted it.
And that there's something wrong with YOU if you feel traumatized.
IMPORTANT NOTES: Researchers studying male survivors have repeatedly identified shame, gender stereotypes and difficulties recognizing or disclosing abuse as important barriers to receiving support.
And this is where Metzger's story becomes the most important part of the conversation.
Because Rogan is describing how he believes society reacts to these situations.
Metzger is describing what one survivor says actually happened to him.
Those are fundamentally different perspectives.
A boy appearing confident, bragging to friends or failing to recognize the relationship as abusive doesn't prove the experience was harmless.
And the effects of childhood abuse don't follow one universal script.
Some survivors experience severe, lasting difficulties.
Others do not.
But the gender of the adult is not a reliable shortcut for determining how badly a child was harmed.
🚨NEW: Joe Rogan passionately argues with former UFC champion Robert Whittaker that Australia needs to start killing their crocodiles because they are eating people:
ROGAN: “Bring back killing crocodiles. Make that fun again. If I live in a place, and I'm a human, anything else that lives in the place that wants to kill me should be dead.”
WHITTAKER: “If you are stupid enough to go for a swim in the river that you clearly can't see the bottom of that’s on you.”
ROGAN: “This is my ground. I'm the person. I'm the one with the brain, the opposable thumbs, and I have the guns. F*ck off.”
“I kill all of you until there's none of you left. I’ll put a few of you in a zoo and we could stare at you from behind the glass. F*ck you forever.”
CONTEXT: Australia actually spent decades killing crocodiles on such an enormous scale that saltwater crocodiles nearly disappeared from parts of the country's north.
By the early 1970s, only about 3,000 remained in the Northern Territory.
Then Australia protected them.
And the population EXPLODED.
Today, the Northern Territory alone is estimated to have approximately 100,000 saltwater crocodiles.
That's more than 30 TIMES the population estimated when protection began.
And we're not talking about harmless reptiles.
Male saltwater crocodiles can exceed 5 metres in length, weigh hundreds of kilograms, and ambush animals much larger than themselves.
Human attacks are absolutely real.
In July 2024, a 12-year-old girl was killed by a crocodile while swimming in a creek near Palumpa in the Northern Territory.
Authorities subsequently located and shot the 4.2-metre crocodile responsible.
Which brings us to something Rogan might not realize:
AUSTRALIA ALREADY KILLS DANGEROUS CROCODILES.
The Northern Territory's official crocodile management program allows targeted removals and culling in areas where the animals threaten public safety.
And the government's own Croc Squad reported removing 240 crocodiles between July 2025 and May 2026.
Queensland has a similar system.
Queensland's government says crocodiles can hide in water shallow enough to reach your knees.
It warns that NO WATERWAY within crocodile habitat can automatically be considered crocodile-free.
And its advice isn't merely to avoid swimming.
It's to stay at least FIVE METRES back from the water's edge.
Why?
Because crocodiles can launch attacks directly from the shoreline.
Even somebody who never planned to swim can encounter one.
So both sides of Rogan and Whittaker's argument contain something real.
IMPORTANT NOTES: Rogan is right that these animals are capable of killing people and that protecting human life must be a priority.
Whittaker is right that entering known crocodile habitat creates risks no amount of wildlife management can completely eliminate.
But here's the fascinating contradiction.
Australia's crocodile conservation program has been so successful that the country now faces the consequences of protecting an apex predator that can occasionally kill humans.
Without the protections, commercial hunting might have driven the species toward local extinction.
With the protections, humans have to share waterways with an animal that has been an extraordinarily successful predator for millions of years.
And now authorities are trying to find the balance between conserving those animals and keeping people alive.
Joe Rogan just got into it with Producer Jamie and veteran Bill Thompson about whether or not Elon Musk’s new $250,000 flying Tesla Roadster is fake and questions how a car that can leap over traffic could ever be street legal:
ROGAN: “There's a lot of people that paid $250,000 for the Roadster in 2017. I know a guy who did that.”
JAMIE: “Some people think the stuff about the Roadster online is not real.”
ROGAN: “It's 100% real. My friend was there.”
CONTEXT: On October 15, Tesla actually demonstrated a redesigned Roadster at a SpaceX facility in Texas.
And this wasn't just another computer-generated concept.
The prototype used SpaceX-developed compressed-gas thrusters to launch into the air, rotate, and land.
It jumped over other vehicles.
It even demonstrated driving UPSIDE DOWN using a suction system.
Tesla says the vehicle can accelerate from 0–60 MPH in UNDER ONE SECOND.
Those acceleration figures are company claims, not independent performance certification.
And the aerial maneuvers were performed WITHOUT ANYBODY INSIDE THE CAR for safety reasons.
But here's where things get interesting.
Rogan immediately asks the question millions of people are probably wondering:
HOW COULD THIS POSSIBLY BE STREET-LEGAL?
And Elon Musk doesn't exactly have a reassuring answer.
At the unveiling, Musk acknowledged that he wasn't certain the Roadster would be legal in every jurisdiction.
When asked about street legality, he responded:
“Depends on your street.”
And there's an important distinction Tesla's promotional spectacle makes easy to miss.
The company is advertising THREE DIFFERENT ROADSTER VERSIONS:
PERFORMANCE: which is a road-oriented version with a $50,000 reservation deposit.
THRUST: A more extreme version with acceleration thrusters and a $250,000 reservation deposit.
ROCKET: An invitation-only, single-seat version with a full flight system.
And that last version?
Tesla itself says the Rocket is NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLIC ROAD USE.
In other words, the version capable of the most spectacular airborne stunts isn't currently something you can legally take onto a public street.
And the $250,000 deposit for the Thrust version doesn't automatically buy you the full flying Rocket variant shown in the demonstration.
But the biggest surprise might be what's happened to customers who started this journey in 2017.
When Tesla originally unveiled the next-generation Roadster, it promised:
0–60 MPH in 1.9 seconds.
Approximately 620 MILES of range.
Production beginning in 2020.
Tesla began accepting reservations immediately.
Standard customers could put down $50,000.
Buyers seeking the original Founders Series could pay the entire $250,000 upfront.
That was NINE YEARS AGO.
And the Roadster still hasn't reached production.
Now Musk says production will begin in 2028.
If that happens, it will be ELEVEN YEARS after customers first started reserving the car.
But here's an overlooked detail.
The new Roadster Tesla is showcasing is radically different from the vehicle those early customers originally reserved.
The old design promised approximately 620 miles of range.
The redesigned vehicle is now being advertised with a range of OVER 300 MILES.
That's less than half the original headline range figure.
It's become dramatically more extreme in its acceleration and aerial capabilities, while giving up much of the range originally promised.
And the financial fine print is fascinating.
Tesla's Roadster reservation agreement says:
The final purchase price has not been established.
A reservation does not constitute an actual vehicle purchase.
IMPORTANT NOTES: Tesla cannot guarantee when the vehicle will be delivered.
And the company does NOT hold reservation funds separately in escrow or pay interest on them.
Reservations are refundable under the agreement's terms, but imagine the opportunity cost for someone who tied up $250,000 back in 2017.
9 years without receiving the car.
9 years with no interest.
New bangers posted on @TheNewsBuffetX
Joe Rogan breaks down why going to protests is a really bad idea.
Joe Rogan just broke down to ARMY veteran Billy Thompson why he never goes to protests:
“You get these massive groups of people that start screaming Black Lives Matter, No Kings, and Free Palestine. It creates a mob mentality where it feels like you’re at war.”
“And then you get this delusional confidence from the group where you think that setting a Starbucks on fire is the right thing to do.”
CONTEXT: Psychologists have actually studied what happens to the human mind when thousands of people start moving, chanting and experiencing intense emotions together.
And the phenomenon has a name:
COLLECTIVE EFFERVESCENCE.
It's the powerful feeling of emotional unity that can emerge when large groups synchronize their behavior.
Think about it.
Thousands of strangers marching in the same direction.
Chanting the same words.
Reacting to the same events.
Suddenly, people who have never met can begin feeling like members of one enormous collective.
And the scientific research is fascinating.
A 2022 meta-analysis examining 50 studies involving 182,738 participants found that these shared emotional experiences were strongly associated with group identification, solidarity and feelings of collective empowerment.
In other words:
THE CROWD CAN CHANGE HOW POWERFUL AN INDIVIDUAL FEELS.
But here's the critical distinction.
That psychological effect doesn't automatically produce violence.
It can also produce cooperation, mutual protection, solidarity and peaceful collective action.
And the actual protest data reveal something surprising.
Researchers at ACLED examined more than 11,000 demonstrations associated with Black Lives Matter during 2020 and early 2021.
Approximately 94% were peaceful.
The remaining 6% involved reported violence, clashes, vandalism, looting or destruction without necessarily establishing who started those incidents.
And the massive No Kings demonstrations in March 2026?
ACLED reported that MORE THAN 99% were peaceful.
So the scientific evidence does NOT support the idea that marching and chanting inherently make protesters violent.
But it does help explain something Rogan is describing.
Human behavior can change dramatically when somebody stops thinking primarily as an isolated individual and starts identifying with a larger group.
And modern crowd psychology suggests the key factor is WHAT THE GROUP BELIEVES IS ACCEPTABLE.
If the dominant expectation is peaceful protest, participants can reinforce peaceful behavior.
If destructive behavior becomes accepted or justified, some members may become willing to cross lines they wouldn't cross alone.
And there's another fascinating factor:
HOW THE CROWD IS TREATED.
Researchers studying protest violence have found that crowd conflict can escalate when people who were initially peaceful begin believing that police or an opposing group are treating everyone as a single hostile enemy.
That shared sense of confrontation can strengthen group identity and change which behaviors participants consider justified.
IMPORTANT NOTES: In a 2025 study published in Perspectives on Politics, researchers found that observers were more likely to PERCEIVE protesters as violent when demonstrations were met with a heavy police presence.
That's an extraordinary finding.
The public can interpret the same protest differently depending on how authorities respond to it.
So the psychology cuts in multiple directions.
Group identity can encourage solidarity.
Group identity can encourage confrontation.
And the reactions of opposing groups can change what happens next.
That's why Rogan's tribal-warfare comparison is such a provocative theory.
Humans clearly possess powerful capacities for forming groups, coordinating behavior and identifying allies and opponents.
But a political march isn't automatically a battlefield.
And feeling united with thousands of strangers isn't automatically the same thing as wanting to hurt somebody.
2
4,812