Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps

|| 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!

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

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

[The News Buffet @TheNewsBuffetX]

Tim Dillon says there will be no midterms:

DILLON: “MIDTERMS?! Israel is gonna nuke the midterms. We’ll be in a war with Turkey by then. Trump is gonna go to Bibi and say we can’t let the midterms happen. It’s bad for business. There are no midterms. Sorry about that.”

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

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.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

@ShaffSCE Then just watch the video. Why so mad lmao

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

🚨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.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

New bangers posted on @TheNewsBuffetX

Joe Rogan breaks down why going to protests is a really bad idea.

[The News Buffet @TheNewsBuffetX]

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.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

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.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

@adamhuver I’d be shocked if he wasn’t on everything. If he isn’t he’s truly God’s favorite

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

New: Joe Rogan tells athletic coach Ross Edgley that he’d be SHOCKED if LeBron James isn’t using Peptides or Hormone Therapies to maintain his elite athleticism in the NBA at age 41:

ROGAN: “He has to be on something. There are 0 studies that show any negative effects to taking BPC-157.”

CONTEXT: LeBron James isn't merely playing basketball at an age when most NBA superstars have retired.

In February 2026, he became the OLDEST PLAYER IN NBA HISTORY to record a triple-double.

His numbers that night:

28 POINTS.
12 ASSISTS.
10 REBOUNDS.
At 41 YEARS OLD.

And he's famously invested enormous resources into maintaining his body.

A February 2026 Los Angeles Times report described LeBron spending more than $1.5 MILLION annually on recovery and maintenance, including hyperbaric chambers, cryotherapy and compression equipment.

That doesn't make him immune to aging.

But it does help explain why his approach to recovery is so different from the average professional athlete's.

Now here's where Rogan's speculation becomes especially controversial.

He specifically brings up two experimental recovery peptides:

BPC-157.
TB-500.

Both have attracted attention for potential tissue-repair and healing effects.

And BOTH are explicitly listed as prohibited performance-enhancing substances in the NBA's collective bargaining agreement.

So are testosterone and human growth hormone.

This isn't simply a question of whether these substances are available outside professional sports.

The NBA has specific rules against them.

But there's another fascinating complication.

Rogan suggests that no research has demonstrated negative effects from BPC-157.

That sounds reassuring.

Until you examine how little HUMAN research actually exists.

A systematic review published on October 8, 2026 identified just THREE qualifying human studies involving a combined total of 30 participants.

30 PEOPLE.

The studies reported no treatment-related adverse events, but researchers classified the overall evidence as VERY LOW CERTAINTY.

They concluded that BPC-157 should not be used clinically outside properly regulated research trials.

In other words:

ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTED HARM IS NOT PROOF OF SAFETY.

There simply haven't been enough high-quality human studies to establish its long-term safety or effectiveness.

The FDA has also raised concerns involving immune reactions, impurities and insufficient human safety data.

And the timing of this debate couldn't be more interesting.

IMPORTANT NOTES: Just days ago, on October 15, 2026, Reuters reported that the FDA was considering a policy change that could make it easier for pharmacies to compound certain experimental peptides, including BPC-157.

That doesn't mean the FDA has approved BPC-157 as safe or effective.

And it wouldn't override the NBA's prohibition.

But it highlights a much larger emerging debate:

If experimental recovery drugs become more accessible to the general public, where should professional sports draw the line between MEDICAL RECOVERY and PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT?

Because modern professional athletes have access to extraordinary resources for extending their careers.

Advanced rehabilitation.
Personalized training.
Sleep optimization.
Specialized nutrition.
Experimental recovery research.

But not every intervention is legal in competition, and not every promising treatment has been proven safe.

And one distinction is absolutely essential:

Rogan provides NO evidence that LeBron has used any prohibited substance.

Exceptional longevity is not proof of doping.

But LeBron's extraordinary career has become a fascinating case study in the limits of human athletic aging.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

@sportsjunkiecl Jordan better anyways

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

More drops posted on @TheNewsBuffetX

Candace Owens reacts to the firing of White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia.

[The News Buffet @TheNewsBuffetX]

New: Candace Owens is visibly sad that Trump's 5-day White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia got fired and says we shouldn’t care that she wasn’t actually an attorney because she felt like one and that’s good enough:

“This is so minuscule. Who cares if she’s not actually an attorney or a doctor. She seems like a nice person. We still have Pete Hegseth in there who lies about bombing schools filled with Iranian children.”

CONTEXT: Katie Zacharia lasted just FIVE DAYS as President Trump's White House press secretary before being removed on October 16.

Her first and only White House press briefing lasted approximately 14 MINUTES, during which she answered just three questions.

Then came the controversy over her legal credentials.

Zacharia earned a law degree from Pepperdine University in 2011.

But during an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, she acknowledged that she FAILED the California bar exam and NEVER retook it.

That was significant because Zacharia had publicly described herself as a lawyer, and Trump himself had introduced her as an “attorney” when announcing her appointment.

Zacharia defended her background, saying she had international legal experience and had consulted people who told her she could use the title “lawyer” because she held a law degree.

But Axios reported that Trump was caught off guard by the revelation that she wasn't a licensed attorney.

Here's where the underlying controversy gets more interesting.

Being a licensed attorney is NOT a requirement to serve as White House press secretary.

Zacharia's failure to pass the bar did not legally disqualify her from holding the position.

The issue was whether her public descriptions of her legal credentials gave an inaccurate impression of her qualifications.

Meanwhile, the Iranian school bombing Owens references is the subject of a far more consequential dispute.

IMPORTANT NOTES: A United Nations-mandated investigation concluded that the United States failed to take adequate precautions to verify the school was a military target.

The White House rejected the investigation's findings.

That does not independently establish Owens's accusation that Hegseth knowingly lied.

But it exposes the comparison at the center of her commentary:

A White House spokesperson was gone after five days amid questions about professional credentials, while the administration continued facing unresolved questions over a deadly military operation.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

Joe Rogan is stunned when Mariana van Zeller exposes that DEA whistleblowers claim that agents let 350,000 fentanyl pills into American streets so they could build bigger cases:

VAN ZELLER: “I know you guys are trying to build bigger cases, but people are dying.”

CONTEXT: The DEA didn't just warn Americans about fentanyl.

It launched a nationwide public safety campaign called:

“ONE PILL CAN KILL.”

The agency warned that counterfeit prescription pills could contain a potentially lethal dose of fentanyl.

But while that campaign was running, some DEA investigators in New Mexico were monitoring large fentanyl shipments without immediately seizing them.

And this isn't based solely on anonymous allegations.

In June 2026, The Associated Press published an investigation based on hundreds of government records and interviews with current and former DEA agents.

Among the documents was a 66-PAGE DEA REPORT describing a June 2023 drug transaction in Albuquerque.

Agents monitored traffickers delivering an estimated 74,000 fentanyl pills.

Federal prosecutors later confirmed that number in a court filing.

The shipment was NOT seized at the time.

But here's the much bigger revelation.

The Justice Department previously had special rules addressing precisely this danger.

Its 2017 “Fentanyl Protocols” emphasized stopping fentanyl distribution as soon as practicable, putting public safety ahead of preserving an investigation.

Then, in 2024, those rules were REWRITTEN.

The revised policy explicitly allowed investigators greater discretion to balance the danger of permitting fentanyl trafficking against the potential benefit of continuing an investigation.

Think about the distinction.

The old approach emphasized preventing deadly drugs from reaching people.

The revised approach allowed officials to weigh that risk against the possibility of building a larger case.

And in August 2026, another DEA whistleblower alleged investigators learned about a shipment of approximately 350,000 FENTANYL PILLS during a wiretap but failed to intercept it.

350,000.

While the agency was warning the country:

“ONE PILL CAN KILL.”

The DEA disputes the suggestion that its agents knowingly endangered communities.

Federal prosecutors argued that monitoring trafficking networks could help identify higher-level criminals rather than merely arresting individual couriers.

And there was a major result.

A lengthy investigation ultimately culminated in a May 2025 operation that seized MORE THAN 3 MILLION fentanyl pills.

That's the strongest argument for the strategy:

Allow investigators to follow the network long enough to dismantle something much larger.

But here's the question critics are asking:

How many dangerous pills can an investigation justify leaving unseized BEFORE the eventual takedown?

And how do investigators measure the human cost of pills they don't recover?

That's not merely a hypothetical accountability concern anymore.

IMPORTANT NOTES: New Mexico's attorney general opened an investigation into the DEA's conduct.

In August 2026, the state SUED the Justice Department seeking investigative records.

The Justice Department's inspector general also launched a broader review examining how federal investigators handle known or suspected fentanyl shipments.

A previous Justice Department investigation had not substantiated the initial whistleblower allegations of misconduct, so wrongdoing has not been established.

But the underlying dispute remains extraordinary.

Law enforcement sometimes allows contraband to move under surveillance to identify higher-level criminals.

The technique can work.

It can also create enormous risks when the contraband is a drug capable of causing fatal overdoses.

And fentanyl makes that calculation especially unforgiving.

Because once an unseized shipment moves beyond investigators' control, there's no guarantee it will ever be recovered.

The whistleblowers say that's exactly what they feared.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

Joe Rogan is completely speechless when investigative journalist Mariana van Zeller reveals that META internally projected $16 BILLION in revenue from scams and banned ads so they charged suspected scammers more money to advertise instead of banning them:

ROGAN: “This means they’re in on it then. They're making money.”

CONTEXT: The numbers come from Meta's OWN internal documents obtained by Reuters, not simply accusations from an angry former employee.

According to the November 2025 investigation, Meta internally estimated that approximately 10% of its total 2024 revenue which is roughly $16 BILLION, could come from advertisements promoting scams and prohibited goods.

Another internal estimate suggested Facebook and Instagram users were being shown approximately 15 BILLION higher-risk scam advertisements EVERY DAY.

Those were estimates based on Meta's classifications, not 15 billion independently verified scams.

But the most disturbing revelation wasn't the amount of money.

It was what Meta reportedly did when its own systems suspected an advertiser was fraudulent.

According to Reuters, Meta's automated enforcement system generally required at least 95% confidence that an advertiser was committing fraud before banning the account.

What happened when the system suspected fraud but didn't reach that threshold?

In certain cases, Meta charged the advertiser MORE MONEY to compete for advertising space.

The company called these higher costs “penalty bids.”

Meta's explanation was that making advertising more expensive would discourage suspicious advertisers from purchasing ads.

But think about the financial contradiction.

If the suspected scammer gives up because advertising becomes too expensive, the system potentially prevents fraudulent ads.

If the suspected scammer can still afford the increased price, Meta can continue earning revenue from that advertiser.

And here's an even stranger possibility:

Scammers running the most profitable operations may be the ones best positioned to absorb the higher advertising costs.

That is an economic concern about the policy's incentives, not proof that Meta deliberately designed it to reward successful fraudsters.

But the internal documents reportedly went further.

Some large advertisers designated as “High Value Accounts” could accumulate MORE THAN 500 enforcement strikes without being shut down, according to Reuters.

And employees were reportedly producing internal summaries identifying the week's “Scammiest Scammer.”

Reuters checked five accounts highlighted in one such report.

TWO were still active more than six months later.

Then there's the part that makes the entire system particularly troubling for ordinary users.

According to the documents, someone who CLICKED on a scam advertisement could become MORE likely to see additional scam advertisements.
Why?

Because Meta's recommendation systems attempt to identify what users are interested in and deliver more relevant advertising.

So a vulnerable person engaging with a suspicious investment opportunity might inadvertently signal to the system that similar advertisements are worth showing them.

That's not necessarily a conscious decision to target victims.

It's a potential consequence of optimizing advertising around engagement without sufficiently eliminating fraudulent advertisers.

And the real-world losses are enormous.

IMPORTANT NOTES: The Federal Trade Commission reports that consumers lost approximately $2.1 BILLION in 2025 to scams that began on social media.

Those losses cover social media broadly, not Meta alone.

New development:

On October 1, 2026, the FTC opened a rulemaking inquiry asking whether digital platforms should face greater legal responsibility for advertising systems that facilitate government and business impersonation scams.

The agency explicitly raised the problem of platforms collecting advertising revenue while consumers bear the financial consequences of fraud.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

@demarais7 Idk that one was new to me as well

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

🚨 NEW: Joe Rogan was in shock when historical storyteller Cody Tucker revealed that Mother Teresa was actually a horrible person who kept dying patients in horrible conditions while massive donations flowed to the Vatican:

TUCKER: “She's a scumbag. Mother Teresa never did anything good.”

CONTEXT: In 1994, a physician named Robin Fox visited Mother Teresa's Home for the Dying in Calcutta.

Fox wasn't some anonymous critic.

He was the editor of The Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals.

And what he described was deeply troubling.

Medical care was inconsistent.

Some decisions were made by nuns and volunteers without formal medical training.

Basic diagnostic investigations were rarely available.

And the facility did not have strong painkillers in its medication supply.

Fox described a patient with a high fever who initially received paracetamol and an antibiotic before a visiting doctor suspected malaria and changed the treatment.

His central objection was that patients who might have treatable conditions weren't being reliably distinguished from people who were actually dying.

Think about that.

Someone could arrive believing they were receiving medical care when they might have needed a proper diagnosis, referral or treatment.

And this wasn't the only criticism.

In 2013, three Canadian academics published a critical review of Mother Teresa's life and work in the journal Studies in Religion.

They questioned her approach to caring for the sick, her political relationships and the management of the enormous donations her organization received.

One of their central concerns was whether a religious belief in the spiritual value of suffering had been allowed to influence the standard of care provided to vulnerable patients.

Mother Teresa believed suffering could have profound spiritual meaning.

But there's a difference between helping someone find meaning in unavoidable suffering...

AND FAILING TO RELIEVE SUFFERING THAT MEDICINE COULD PREVENT.

There is also an important complication.

During the 1990s, India had extraordinarily restrictive regulations governing access to morphine.

Human Rights Watch later documented that India's medical morphine consumption collapsed by approximately 97% between 1985 and 1997.

Even major hospitals struggled to obtain adequate pain medication.

So the absence of strong painkillers at Mother Teresa's facilities does not, by itself, prove she deliberately withheld them because she wanted patients to suffer.

And Fox acknowledged something critics often leave out:

The home he visited provided cleanliness, wound care and genuine kindness to desperately poor people.

The Missionaries of Charity also cared for people whom hospitals had turned away.

Mother Teresa saw her mission primarily as offering dignity, love and spiritual comfort to the abandoned, rather than operating conventional hospitals.

Critics have questioned the Missionaries of Charity's financial transparency for decades.

But Tucker's more specific allegation that Mother Teresa funneled donated money to the Vatican rather than caring for patients has not been established by the evidence reviewed here.

That distinction matters.

IMPORTANT NOTES: Mother Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.

The Catholic Church canonized her as a saint in 2016.

To millions of people, she remains one of the greatest symbols of compassion in modern history.

But the historical record also contains serious criticisms that deserve examination rather than automatic dismissal.

The most disturbing question isn't whether Mother Teresa personally believed suffering had spiritual value.

It's whether that belief, combined with the way her facilities operated, ever resulted in people enduring pain or illness that could have been treated.

Because there is a fundamental difference between helping someone die with dignity...

And allowing someone to suffer when they might not have needed to.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

@ben__h It’s crazy. They really lied to us about everybody who’s a “hero”. No surprise anymore at this point.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

Bonus content posted on @TheNewsBuffetX

Nick Fuentes just ripped Ilhan Omar into oblivion and says Trump must follow through on his promises or this entire thing could backfire.

[The News Buffet @TheNewsBuffetX]

Nick Fuentes says he wants Ilhan Omar DEPORTED following the federal search of her home but warns that President Trump Is making a dangerous mistake If he doesn't finish the job:

“Obviously, we want to deport Ilhan Omar and SNEAKO. There's also a long list of political enemies that Trump should persecute using the DOJ, using federal law enforcement. I'm all in favor of that.”

CONTEXT: Federal investigators searched Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's Washington, D.C., home on October 12 as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

The investigation reportedly centers partly on immigration paperwork submitted when Omar was a child, including questions concerning her late father's immigration and naturalization history.

According to the Associated Press, investigators have also seized Omar's phone and issued more than a dozen grand jury subpoenas, including some to her relatives.

Omar became a U.S. citizen in 2000 and denies wrongdoing.

The search occurred just 22 DAYS before the November midterm elections.

That timing matters because the Justice Department has historically avoided conspicuous investigative actions involving candidates close to elections.

And federal guidelines explicitly prohibit prosecutors from making investigative decisions based on someone's political beliefs or timing actions to influence an election.

His proposed solution isn't to stop pursuing political enemies.

“If you do these things, you got to finish them. You got to finish the job.”

“You got to make an example out of them. You have to absolutely strike fear into the enemy.”

And he concludes that he hopes Omar is deported, but doubts the investigation will produce that result.

Here's the unresolved legal reality:

A search warrant is not a criminal conviction.

And revoking American citizenship requires a legally established basis, not simply accusations or political demands.

IMPORTANT NOTES: The Justice Department says the search was judicially authorized.

Omar calls it political intimidation.

The investigation's full evidentiary basis has not been made public.

But Fuentes's argument raises a separate issue that goes beyond Omar herself.

He isn't merely arguing that suspected immigration fraud should be investigated.

He's explicitly endorsing federal persecution of political enemies while warning that the same machinery could eventually be turned against his own side.

The fundamental question is what happens to equal enforcement of the law when political movements begin treating control of federal investigators and prosecutors as a weapon to use against their opponents.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

Joe Rogan gets into a serious debate with 2 time Oscar winner Michael Douglas about whether or not Americans should be allowed to own guns:

DOUGLAS: “I can't find any reason for somebody to own an automatic military-style weapon.”

ROGAN: “The worst outcome would be falling to protect your family because you didn’t own a gun.”

DOUGLAS: “I’d rather get stabbed than shot.”

ROGAN: “Really? You die either way.”

CONTEXT: Fully automatic weapons and ordinary semiautomatic firearms are NOT the same thing.

A fully automatic gun can fire multiple rounds with one continuous trigger activation.

A semiautomatic firearm generally fires one round per trigger pull.

And under federal law, civilian possession of newly manufactured machine guns has generally been prohibited since 1986, with limited exceptions for previously registered weapons.

So when Douglas questions why civilians need automatic military-style weapons, he's challenging a category that's already subject to extraordinary legal restrictions.

But Rogan's argument is about something different:

Owning an ordinary firearm for personal protection.

And this is where the numbers become interesting.

A 2024 peer-reviewed study using the federal National Crime Victimization Survey estimated approximately 61,000–65,000 defensive firearm incidents annually across the periods studied between 1987 and 2021.

Those are real reported incidents involving people using guns to defend themselves.

Other private surveys have produced dramatically higher estimates, partly because they ask different questions about threats and defensive behavior.

So armed self-defense is not simply a hypothetical concept.

But there's another side to the equation.

IMPORTANT NOTES: In 2022, researchers published a massive California study following approximately 17.6 MILLION adults.

They found that people who began living with lawful handgun owners had more than DOUBLE the rate of homicide compared with people living in homes without handgun owners.

Even more striking:

Among homicides occurring at home, those living with handgun owners experienced approximately SEVEN TIMES the rate of being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner.

These are observational associations, not proof that every gun-owning household faces those odds or that ownership alone caused the deaths.

But they illustrate exactly the danger Douglas is worried about.

And then there's one of the most heartbreaking details of Rogan's own life.

His friend Phil Hartman, the legendary Saturday Night Live comedian, was murdered in May 1998.

Not by a home intruder.

Not by a stranger breaking through the door.

He was shot to death while sleeping by his wife, Brynn, who later killed herself.

Rogan brings up Hartman's murder during the conversation.

Which makes the philosophical disagreement extraordinary.

Douglas even recalls an incident involving his young son picking up a gun that had been left accessible in the house.

Rogan immediately acknowledges the importance of keeping firearms secured.

And the CDC agrees: locked storage can help prevent unauthorized access, particularly by children.

But there's an unavoidable practical tension:

A gun stored securely needs to remain inaccessible to unauthorized people.

A gun intended for emergency defense also needs to be accessible quickly enough to use.

Those two objectives require careful planning, and neither resolves every possible danger.

That's what makes this conversation more than another celebrity argument about the Second Amendment.

Rogan is weighing the consequences of being defenseless against a violent attacker.

Douglas is weighing the consequences of introducing a potentially lethal weapon into an ordinary household.

The difficult question is which risks a household is actually taking on and which dangers people are most prepared to prevent.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

@prater3411 The man does make great movies though.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

@lobsterlogos Very serious topic.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

Extra drop posted on @TheNewsBuffetX

Alex Jones did not hold back when speaking about his feeling towards Ilhan Omar 😂

[The News Buffet @TheNewsBuffetX]

New: Alex Jones giving Ilhan Omar an all time ripping is by far the greatest thing you’ll watch this week 😂

“She needs to be deported. Oh please send her back to Somalia. She comes from a family that specializes in cutting black men’s testicles off. This lady sees blacks as subhuman. She couldn’t go to prison soon enough. This woman is a monster scumbag, piece of trash, and I hope she burns in hell.”

CONTEXT: There's a real, dark chapter of Somali history behind part of Jones's rant.

During the late 1980s, dictator Siad Barre's forces carried out mass killings, bombardments and persecution against the Isaaq population in northern Somalia.

But here's the critical distinction:

The atrocities are documented.

Jones's allegations against Omar and her family are not established by that history.

Omar's late father, Nur Omar Mohamed, reportedly served as a colonel in Somalia's military.

However, independent reporting has not established that he personally participated in the documented atrocities.

Jones goes considerably further, accusing Omar of holding racist beliefs and demanding that she be imprisoned and expelled from the United States.

He also claims the Qur'an forbids marriage to Black men.

But the Qur'an contains no such racial prohibition.

Chapter 49, verse 13 describes humanity as different peoples and tribes and identifies righteousness, not race, as the measure of honor.

And there's another major issue with the deportation demand:

IMPORTANT NOTES: Ilhan Omar has been a naturalized American citizen since 2000.

Naturalized citizenship cannot simply be disregarded because a politician or commentator wants someone expelled. Revoking it requires a legal basis and proceedings.

In a separate development, federal investigators searched Omar's Washington home on October 12 as part of an ongoing immigration-related investigation.

The Justice Department confirmed the search, while Omar denounced it as political intimidation.

That investigation does not establish Jones's accusations about her family's involvement in atrocities or her alleged racial beliefs.

The unresolved question is whether Jones can produce evidence for the specific accusations he's making rather than pointing to real crimes committed by a regime and treating them as proof against one American politician and her family.

[Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps @JoeRoganRecaps]

New: Joe Rogan is in a state of amazement when The Big Bang Theory creator Chuck Lorre reveals he fell into the Scientology cult for 10 years and exposes how they would charge people $50,000 to achieve a higher spiritual state:

LORRE: “It’s all marketing. They’re always selling you on having the institutionally held secrets. You stick around because everyone wants to know the secrets of life.”

ROGAN: “The added benefit they have is that they have all these successful celebrities.”

CONTEXT: Chuck Lorre really did spend about a decade involved with Scientology.

In a Los Angeles Times interview published today alongside his new memoir, Lorre called it “one of my darker secrets” and said he had been embarrassed by that decade of his life.

He says he entered Scientology when he was a broke young musician looking for direction, continued taking courses after moving to Los Angeles and at one point even signed the Sea Organization’s infamous billion-year commitment.

He lasted two days in the Sea Org.

But Lorre’s broader point about secrets is not something the Church of Scientology itself denies.

Scientology’s official website says that a small portion of its most advanced scriptures is deliberately kept confidential.

The church says members must become sufficiently prepared “spiritually and ethically” before receiving them, and says premature exposure could interfere with spiritual development.

Scientology even has a formal progression system for this.

It is called the Bridge to Total Freedom.

Members move through increasingly advanced levels, eventually reaching what Scientology calls Operating Thetan, or OT.

The church says these levels must be taken in an established sequence and that putting somebody onto the OT levels before they are ready would be “fruitless.”

So when Lorre says:

“Oh, I want to know the secret. If I stick around, I’ll find out the secret.”

he is describing a real structural feature of the religion:

THE MOST ADVANCED INFORMATION IS AT THE END OF A PROGRESSION.

And getting farther along that progression can require serious investments of both time and money.

IMPORTANT NOTES: Religious-studies scholar Donald Westbrook, who conducted extensive fieldwork among Scientologists, describes advancement through the Bridge as something that usually costs money and always costs time. He also confirms that the OT materials are confidential.

Historical reporting shows just how expensive that process could become.

A major Los Angeles Times investigation found that auditing was sold in 12½-hour blocks that at the time ranged from roughly $3,000 to $11,000 depending on where it was purchased.

Former Scientologists have separately described spending six figures over the course of years on auditing, courses and donations.