Transcript

The Department Of War Has A Mullet | Palmer Luckey #464 | The Way I Heard It

From Mike Rowe · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 1 h 12 min · 14,371 words · 187 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "The Department Of War Has A Mullet | Palmer Luckey #464 | The Way I Heard It", an episode of Mike Rowe published January 15, 2026 (1 h 12 min, about 14,371 words). It mentions 37 people, works and ideas, including Palmer Lucky, Department of Defense, Department of War, nuclear power, autonomous weapons.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 10:00: risk equilibrium, American Giant, Palmer Lucky, Airbus
  2. – 20:00: Department of War, Department of Defense, General Dynamics, Northrup
  3. – 30:00: Dutch Navy, Department of Defense, Tolken, Oculus Rift
  4. – 40:00: Tolken, The Lord of the Rings, Middle Earth
  5. – 50:00: nuclear power, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Green New Deal, Aligned
  6. – 1:00:00: deep sea mining, Deep Sea Mining, Fracking, energy independence
  7. – 1:10:00: nuclear power
  8. – 1:12:03: Palmer Lucky

Notable quotes from "The Department Of War Has A Mullet | Palmer Luckey #464 | The Way I Heard It"

  • I do not. You'd much rather have our wars and battles being fought with the kind of hardware that you're creating.
    about autonomous weapons · at
  • It was because I was so terrified of what would happen if we didn't get people out of working on things like tech, search engines and social media and put them to work on.
    about Palmer Lucky · at
  • First things that I started pushing was that we need to be honest about what the Department of Defense does. And remember, it used to be the Department of War.
    about Department of Defense · at
  • Well, can't we in this case defer to Tolken? I'm I'm assuming this is the case, like the sword of power.
    about Tolken · at
  • This was the dream of the early age of atomic power. It was power that was too cheap to meter. It was so cheap to make electricity it wasn't even worth keeping track of how.
    about nuclear power · at
  • Germany is shutting down their nuclear plants. We need more and more energy. There was a great bit that AOC did when the Green New Deal was going through and originally it…
    about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) · at
  • And I don't know. I believe fracking was the approximate cause horizontal drilling the proximate cause of energy independence in this country, right?
    about energy independence · at
  • Need 250,000 welders and electricians for submarines. there's going to be another 100,000 for the deep sea mining, automotive, energy, AI, so forth. Like the stakes are really…
    about deep sea mining · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Palmer Lucky — Person · Main guest · 2 mentions · first at
    Central voice of the episode; explains why he entered defense, critiques procurement/consolidation, and argues for energy abundance and autonomy.
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) — Person · Referenced political figure · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as an example of unusually blunt political messaging; used to argue that some climate/energy policy is about power structures, not emissions alone.
  • Tolken — Person · Referenced author (misspelled mention of Tolkien) · 3 mentions · first at
    Invoked in a discussion about pronunciation, allegory, and moral themes of war/evil in The Lord of the Rings; supports the guest’s framing of “just wars.”
  • Harold Ham — Person · Referenced expert · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as a pioneer in the fracking industry, contributing to U.S. energy independence.
    My friend Harold Ham more or less pioneered it.
  • Jack McGillicuy — Person · Referenced expert · 1 mention · first at
    Used as a hypothetical example of an honest airline pilot to contrast with current practices.
    Designed to make everybody, feel a special way. If he told the truth, on the other hand, if he said, Look, my name's Jack McGillicuy. I've been flying for this airline now for 20 years, and I'm big fan of everybody on.

Books & papers

  • The Lord of the Rings — Book · Referenced work · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced to draw parallels between its themes and modern geopolitical and defense challenges.
    Clear that those are the wars you need to focus on fighting. So here's here's the quote. This is from CS Lewis. Almost the central theme of the book is the contrast between the…

Companies & orgs

  • Department of Defense — Company · Core topic · 4 mentions · first at
    Discussed in the context of its role and the proposal to rename it to Department of War to reflect its true purpose.
  • Department of War — Company · Core topic · 4 mentions · first at
    Proposed as a more honest name for the Department of Defense to clarify its mission.
    Sure. for a long time. In fact, the Department of War as the Department of War has a better track record than the Department of Defense.
  • Northrop Grumman — Company · Referenced expert · 2 mentions
    Mentioned as one of the major defense contractors post-Cold War consolidation.
  • General Dynamics — Company · Referenced expert · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as one of the major defense contractors post-Cold War consolidation.
    So who just so people understand it maybe me too but General Dynamics Rathon is thol part of them or that's that's more rocket it dep it depends on the year you know it's a.
  • Northrup — Company · Referenced expert · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as one of the major defense contractors post-Cold War consolidation.
    It dep it depends on the year you know it's a Northrup North Yep. I mean what happened postc cold war was a consolidation of about 50 companies of note into maybe five six seven depending on you know how at what point you count.
  • Airbus — Company · Referenced expert · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in the context of helicopter ownership and aviation industry.
    I flew in it's I own a few helicopters, but today I flew my Euroopter EC120, although now it's owned by Airbus.
  • Facebook — Company · Referenced expert · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in the context of the guest's past involvement and departure.
    Motivate you. A guy who created Oculus Rift, sold it for a couple billion dollars, got himself fired from Facebook for donating nine grand to some pack that supported Trump to cut to get back into this world.
  • Aligned — Company · Referenced expert · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as a company involved in data center operations, highlighting energy demands.
    I just walked I just walked through a data center for the first time. Yep. Big tour Plano. Our buddies over at Aligned, right, man. I talk about metering a thing like the amount of energy that.

Products & tech

  • nuclear power — Product · Key argument · 3 mentions · first at
    Highlighted as a critical component for energy independence and competitive advantage in manufacturing and defense.
  • autonomous weapons — Product · Core topic · 2 mentions
    Highlighted as a key area of innovation for modern defense strategies.
  • Fracking — Product · Key argument · 2 mentions · first at
    Presented as a pivotal technology for achieving energy independence in the United States.
    And I don't know. I believe fracking was the approximate cause horizontal drilling the proximate cause of energy independence in this country, right?
  • deep sea mining — Product · Key argument · 2 mentions · first at
    Highlighted as a critical industry for securing rare earth minerals necessary for technology and defense.
  • AI fighter jets — Product · Case study · 1 mention · first at
    Highlighted as an example of next-generation defense technology being developed.
    Progress at my company that much in terms of the people. I it's it's in our output like what are we making? Are we successfully making AI fighter jets, robot submarines…
  • Oculus Rift — Product · Case study · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as a previous venture of the guest, highlighting his background in technology.
    Motivate you. A guy who created Oculus Rift, sold it for a couple billion dollars, got himself fired from Facebook for donating nine grand to some pack that supported Trump.
  • robot submarines — Product · Case study · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as part of the autonomous weapons systems being developed for modern warfare.
    Our output like what are we making? Are we successfully making AI fighter jets, robot submarines, rockets and munitions and missiles and, self- aiming rifles and force fields?…
  • self-aiming rifles — Product · Case study · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as an example of advanced military technology enhancing soldier capabilities.
    We successfully making AI fighter jets, robot submarines, rockets and munitions and missiles and, self- aiming rifles and force fields? if we're making that stuff, I'm okay if…
  • geoengineering — Product · Key argument · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as a controversial but potentially necessary approach to climate change.
    Possible if you ignore the wealth of re I have to say one more thing about forbidden truths. Did you know that geoengineering is prohibited research at many universities? A lot…
  • force fields — Product · Case study · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as an example of futuristic defense technology being developed.
    Robot submarines, rockets and munitions and missiles and, self- aiming rifles and force fields? if we're making that stuff, I'm okay if my company isn't growing is if those people are becoming more and more capable.
  • Eurocopter EC120 — Product · Case study · 2 mentions
    Mentioned as the helicopter model flown by the guest to the podcast recording.
    I flew in it's I own a few helicopters, but today I flew my Euroopter EC120, although now it's owned by Airbus.
  • Euroopter EC120 — Product · Case study · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as the helicopter model flown by the guest to the podcast recording.
    I flew in it's I own a few helicopters, but today I flew my Euroopter EC120, although now it's owned by Airbus.
  • copper jacket — Product · Case study · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as a unique piece of clothing worn by the guest during significant appearances.
    Dude, you were wearing what I think may have been a jacket made of copper.
  • five finger shoes — Product · Case study · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as an example of functional fashion chosen for practical reasons over style.
    Fashion nearly as much as fashion for the sake of functionality. I'm I'm wearing these I'm wearing these, my five finger shoes. Well, at least you're not I was expecting flip flops. That's the standard.

Concepts & topics

  • energy independence — Concept · Key argument · 1 mention · first at
    Discussed as a strategic goal for national security and economic competitiveness.
  • Deep Sea Mining — Concept · Key argument · 2 mentions · first at
    Highlighted as a critical industry for securing rare earth minerals necessary for technology and defense.
    And they're there a few months from now it's going to be headline. We're we're going to have the same giant conversation about the ethical moral dilemma of going down 5,000 mters and scooping up these rocks and the.
  • risk equilibrium — Concept · Key argument · 2 mentions · first at
    Discussed in the context of how safety measures can lead to riskier behavior.
    The theory, as I understand it, goes back to something called homeostatic risk or risk equilibrium or compensatory risk, right? And this I'd love to get your take on this. The…
  • Dutch Navy — Concept · Case study · 2 mentions · first at
    Used as an example of how nations can become economically and militarily irrelevant over time.
    Nobody destroyed the Dutch Navy. They just made it not something you have to think about anymore. They were made irrelevant.
  • Green New Deal — Concept · Key argument · 1 mention · first at
    Critiqued for its focus on government control over energy rather than reducing carbon emissions.
    No subsidies for nuclear power? Isn't that lowering about lowering carbon emissions? And she said, The Green New Deal isn't about lowering carbon emissions. It's about…
  • Middle Earth — Concept · Referenced work · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced to draw parallels between its fictional conflicts and real-world geopolitical strategies.
    And you look at the map of Middle Earth and you see where the Shire is.

Places & events

  • Plano — Place · Setting · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as the location of a data center tour, highlighting the demand for skilled labor.
    I just walked I just walked through a data center for the first time. Yep. Big tour Plano. Our buddies over at Aligned, right,.

Media & podcasts

  • energy conference — Media · Setting · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as the event where the guest and host first met, discussing energy and defense topics.
    Alex Epstein in Newport. It was the energy conference.

Sponsors

  • American Giant — Company · Sponsor · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as a sponsor of the podcast and an example of American manufacturing.
    Consequently, Micro only wears clothing made in the USA, specifically by American giant. Why? Because Micro understands that back in 1980, 75% of all the clothing worn by Americans.

Full transcript with timestamps

I want America to be in a world where if there is a just reason to rise to the occasion that we're able to, but I I just don't think that we have it in us. Look at the kids who are who are on the beaches in Normandy on D-Day.

Yeah. Do you think that we have a few million of those? I do not. You'd much rather have our wars and battles being fought with the kind of hardware that you're creating. Better to have the gear over there than our blood and treasure.

That's right. Palmer Lucky came in hot. Uh I appreciate it. A helicopter brought you to my modest.

I flew I flew in in um it's I I I own a few helicopters, but today I flew my uh Euroopter EC120, although now it's owned by Airbus.

You flew it? You flew it? Yeah. Yeah. I I flew it with a co-pilot, so I'm a I'm a uh

So, you're still under some level of supervision. I'm Look, when you get to a certain level of responsibility, uh it's irresponsible to uh not spend a little money and have somebody who's a lot better at it than you. And I'm Look, I'm I'm an okay beginner helicopter pilot. I am not uh competent enough to be flying around on my own. If I could, I'd bring a co-pilot on my motorcycle, but I can't. See, that's the level of disclosure and honesty I'd like to hear on a on United or American Airlines as I'm strapping in, right? I just like to hear the guy up front or or the or the woman. Just level with me. You know, this is my second year. I I feel pretty good. I think I've got room for improvement and I appreciate you guys letting me work through some of the bugs here. The captain has, you know, 40 years of experience. That's what people want to hear.

Yeah. We want the warm milk that says, you know what, it's it's going to be okay. Somebody's got an eye on you. Ignore the sirens outside. It adds to the very similitude. But um it's funny. The first time I met you, I think it was it it must have been nine months ago.

Alex Epstein in Newport. It was the energy conference. That's right. Now, I don't know if you remember this. You arrived at that event on a motorcycle.

I did. I do remember that. Dude, you were wearing what I think may have been a jacket made of copper.

That's right. Actually, it's so funny. I I don't even wear it all that often. And I wore it on Joe Rogan and I wore it on that motorcycle. I'm actually not sure I wore it more than once or twice between those events a year apart. So, it's a it's a it's funny that that jacket comes up yet again.

Well, I mean, it's really cool, though. I've never liked fashion for the sake of fashion nearly as much as fashion for the sake of uh functionality. Like, I'm I'm wearing these I'm wearing these uh these, you know, my my five finger shoes. Well, at least you're not I mean, I was expecting flip flops. That's the standard.

So, this is the thing. I normally do wear flip flops, but in this case, I had to fly my helicopter. And so, I want to get some uh I want to wear shoes that are uh fire retardant in case I crash. I don't want my shoes melt into my feet um in case, you know, you have to step through some fire. Uh I needed something that is really flexible, really thin, so I can feel the pedals really well. It's important to be able to operate the foot controls in a helicopter, even more so than an airplane. Um and so, I'm not wearing these for fashion reasons. I'm wearing them for for for function reasons and that's that's the best kind of fashion I think

and also creates opportunities for guys like you to capitalize on some sort of inefficiency. I think it does create opportunities where it gets tricky of course is where it's tied to uh you know legislation especially where it can get very prescriptive. You know there's there's certain areas where you can innovate relatively freely. Um and and those tend to be the areas that see the most innovation right that there's a reason that I think the internet and social media and all these things got so much investment. It was partly because those were nent technological spaces. It was also because there were basically no rules. You could just do anything right.

Uh whereas you one of my one example of this is with um is with like automobiles. Uh there's a lot of safety devices that uh are legal in other places like automatic steering headlights and they're just not legal here in the United States yet. And eventually usually we catch up with these things.

Automatic steering. You mean headlights that pivot as you as you turn as you turn. Yeah. Exactly. So they can they can basically uh you know keep more like imagine if you're going around a tight turn, your headlights are pointing forward. Now you can't see anything in the inside of the turn. They solved this in in Europe a while ago. I don't usually give kudos to Europe, but that this one the one thing,

but um yeah, croissants are good, too. Well, that was done a long time ago. I' I've got a whole theory that a lot of these European nations are kind of living in graveyards where, you know, they're like monuments to their forebears who who invented, you know, the croissants. And but like another example is seat belts. Um people wonder why seatelt technology hasn't advanced and why we haven't had something that like replaces seat belts. The answer is that when seat belts were being first introduced, there were actually active research and development programs around things like uh total immobilizers based on airbag technology on uh cars that had uh that had just different schemes for protecting someone in a crash. But then Congress passed legislation that required all cars to have a seat belt. And a seat belt is defined in an extremely specific way.

It's a three-point harness. It does this. It does that. For example, this is my favorite example. Um race cars. Mhm.

Those guys are not using three-point harnesses. They're using 4.5 point harnesses. And why are they doing that? Because it's safer. So, like I have a buddy of mine who has a car and it has a uh five-point harness in it

and it has a three-point seat belt in it. Why? Because if he gets pulled over on the highway wearing his inarguably scientifically proven to be safer fivepoint harness, well, that doesn't meet the definition of a seat belt. You're supposed to on the highway be wearing that three-point harness. And so this is one of those things that kills innovation. Why would GM or Ford invest billions in a new safety technology that would replace a seat belt when the law says you have to have a seat belt? And here's exactly what a seat belt is. It's Anyway, but the point is these tightly regulated spaces, it's where you see the least innovation, which is why I'm crazy for starting a company in the defense space because it's so highly regulated.

Yet you're talking about the uh the trap of of of doing it right. Y in other words, just because you're in compliance doesn't mean you're out of danger.

Y the theory, as I understand it, goes back to something called homeostatic risk or risk equilibrium or compensatory risk, right? And this I'd love to get your take on this. The unintended consequence of introducing various mandates and safety protocols

will make you safer uh environmentally, but emotionally you will compensate. So So now you know you're safer cuz you're seat belts on, your helmet's on, you're locked in five points. Every study indicates that the driver who feels that way will accelerate, corner more tightly. That's right.

And take more chances. Not on purpose, but because your brain is trying to get back to some sort of equilibrium that is only pegged to your individual tastes and everybody's protocols are different. Now, everybody has to have this fundamentally unsafe car because then everybody will realize that they're not going to survive a crash. Therefore, you don't need speed limits anymore because everybody is going to compensate their risk equilibrium. But

same argument, NFL, take away the helmets, more or less brain injury. Well, right. Because the theory is you give them the helmets and they're doing these, you know, they're using the helmets as weapons basically. Yeah. They're slamming into each other. 100%. Well, something else that people probably don't

Would you do that? Like, would you favor that knowing like the way I'm trying to figure out how your brain works? I well look I I lean libertarian so what I would say is that that'd be a voluntary contract that you can enter into. I think if somebody wants to enter into a contract that has a 50% chance of them suffering brain injury over the course of their career they should be allowed to do it. These players are making tens of millions of dollars a year. Some of them if they want to enter into a contract to do that knowing that there's risk of concussion. What they should do is they should try to mitigate that risk. They should advocate for things that are meeting their risk tolerance.

And if and if and if people don't want to participate in that, that's fine. But with all the problems that exist in society, the long-term health impacts of people who sign up for what is effectively a combat sport and then and and to have other people advocating for the these combat, you know, uh athletes on their behalf, I've always thought rings ring rings rings a bit hollow given all the other problems you could fight for. I'm just interested all of this. It's like the unintended consequences of force compliance. Unlike 99% of all the bobbleheads ever produced, the micro micro bobble head was made entirely in this country.

Consequently, Micro Micro only wears clothing made in the USA, specifically by American giant. Why? Because Micro Micro understands that back in 1980, 75% of all the clothing worn by Americans was made by Americans. And today, it's less than 2%. Which is why he would very much appreciate it if you would stop by American-giant.com and pick up something awesome, something made in the USA. Check out their terrific collection of American essentials. Currently available in red, white, and blue, and all the usual adult sizes. Use code mike to get 20% off your order at american-giant.com/mike.

Be a giant. american-giant.com/mike. Thank you. And where we started, if I remember, was basically how that impacts language. And in a jokey way, we talked about what would happen to the state of mind of a passenger on a plane if he or she was confronted with with the blistering truth of the pilot. Mhm.

Cuz right now, to your point, we're being lied to. Like when I sit down and strap in, as I will later, um my pilot's going to tell me that safety is our priority.

Yep. Now that's If if it were, we wouldn't be, you know, in an aluminum tube flying 550 mph defying gravity. We We simply wouldn't do that if the most important thing was to be safe. Uh but he's going to tell me it is. And then he's going to say he's going to serve a bunch of warm milk. designed to make everybody, you know, feel a special way. If he told the truth, on the other hand, if he said, "Look, my name's Jack McGillicuy. I've been flying for this airline now for 20 years, and I'm big fan of everybody on the plane. We're so grateful for your business, but in the scheme of things, I love my wife more, and my kids are super super important to me. So, here's the good news. I'm going to get my ass home to them tonight. Come hell or high water. you guys, you just sit back, strap in, don't give the flight attendants a hard time, and you're welcome. I would feel so much better. Is any of this applicable in the business

of defense? You'd be surprised. I think so. I mean, one of the interesting things about the defense industry is that we've built kind of a a similar set of fictions around our capability and how we're safe and we're secure and we're spending all this money on on defense to good end. I think it's started to fall apart uh slowly first as we just spent more and more and more and I think people realize we're just spending too much on it.

Wait a minute. Are you talking about you or the big five? I'm talking about I'm talking about big picture. The United States of America just big picture. The United States really since the end of the Cold War has erected these ideas that the things that we're spending money on are going to keep us safe and that they're going to help our allies win win any potential war that comes along. And then we've been confronted with this stark reality. Things like the Ukraine invasion where we realize that actually a lot of these tools are sitting ducks. you're going to have $50 million bombers blown up by $500 drones, that we don't have the tools that we need to stop them. Uh that we that that the globalization of our economy and allowing containers and ships and everything else to move around the world basically unimpeded means that you don't even have to use an ICBM to deliver a nuke into a port. You can just put it in

a shipping container and put it over on a ship and it will go right up to the same place and it'll only cost you like 600 bucks, too. Yeah. Um, I think people are realizing that there were all of these un underlying assumptions that that just aren't true. That that we kind of assumed that a war would look like how we assumed it would during the Cold War. And we're realizing actually we live in a world where people are going to exploit every every advantage they have and every disadvantage that you have and it probably doesn't look anything like uh the conflicts of the past. And that's that's actually why I got into the defense space. It wasn't because I thought this was an area that was ripe for innovation. It wasn't because I thought, "Oh, this is the place where I'm going to be able to just very easily come in and change things."

It was because I was so terrified of what would happen if we didn't get people out of working on things like tech, you know, search engines and social media and put them to work on building the things that can stop the actual threats that the United States faces, things that are being built by Russia, by China, by Iran, even by North Korea, and then really whatever comes next. There's a lot of there's a lot of these things. You don't need to be a superpower to build to build small drones or cyber warfare tools or really interesting novel boweapons. Uh you don't need to be like a US style hyperpower to try and build a bioweapon that exterminates your ethnic neighbors in Africa that aren't quite exactly the same type of African that you are. Those are type the types of things that we need to figure out how to defend against. and uh the you know the big five but also the United States in general was not equipped to work on

those problems. So who just so people understand it maybe me too but General Dynamics Rathon uh is thol part of them uh or that's that that's more rocket

it dep it depends on the year you know it's a Northrup North Yep. I mean what what happened postc cold war was a consolidation of about 50 companies of note into maybe five six seven depending on you know how at what point you count the mergers. Yeah. Um there was a massive amount of consolidation that that happened and there that was that was not an accident and it wasn't even a free market thing. It was actually directed by the government. Uh there was there was a dinner called the last supper where they brought together the executives from all these top companies right after the end of the cold war.

This is the military-industrial complex writ large. And there was a dinner literally one dinner

called the last supper. It's it's known to this day in the defense industry as the last supper. And the the quote the quote from it uh from the joint chiefs was consolidate or die. it was they said we will not support a defense industry of all these different companies. Uh you need to consolidate you and I think the theory was we're going to be spending less on defense. We won't be able to support all these large companies. Therefore, you need to become more efficient. The problem is that often times consolidation in an industry leads to less competition

and and wild inefficiencies. And there's another thing that it leads to which is a lot of too big to fail type of decisions. When you have 50 companies, it's easy to let the one that trips and falls because they were running too fast uh perish. You know, if someone does a risk if they if they're taking too much risk, and I'm not even talking about technical risk. You have to take technical risk in research and development. I'm talking about things like they were paying too much of their profits out to shareholders as dividends and so they don't have any cash reserves to cover to to to cover the shortfall when when a program is running long.

It's, you know, that type of risk. But when you what what do you do when you only have one company in the entire country that can build fighter jets? What do you do when there's one company that is able to build submarines? You end up in a really gnarly situation where you either have to prop them up no matter how bad it gets or you have to let them die and probably you're you're now just screwed for decades until you can restand up that capability elsewhere. And I think unfortunately the people who made this centrally planned decision as as people doing centrally planned government uh often do they did not realize what that f the second and third order impacts of their decision would be this consolidator die they didn't understand what it was really going to bring about which brings me to this question the department of war.

Yep. Did somebody just actually speak the truth? So I I don't know if you know this either, but I was one of the people who was pushing for the name change Department of War.

I swear to God, I had no idea. Paul, it was actually when I was at Mara Lago right after Trump won, one of the very first things that I started pushing was that we need to be honest about what the Department of Defense does. And remember, it used to be the Department of War.

Sure. for a long time. In fact, the Department of War as the Department of War has a better track record than the Department of Defense.

And I don't I don't know if that's totally unrelated. Obviously, there's more factors than just a name. But when you should think of it as a sliding scale of possible names and possible meanings,

um Department of War is at one end. It's very very clear what it is. Your goal is to win wars, not necessarily to start wars. Remember the Department of War, it's job. They don't get to decide who they're fighting. That's up to Congress. That's up to the president. That's up to the civilian leadership that are accountable to leaders. You shouldn't want the people in the Department of War to be people who are measured people weighing what might be right geopolitically.

It's not the time for nuance. Their their job is to win wars and to maintain a posture that will allow them to win wars so that they so that the the the civilian leadership has that as you know the the the strength part of the peace through strength equation. They they need to be able to say, "Hey, we can do this the easy way or the hard way, and we'd prefer to not fight, but if there's a fight, the Department of War will win that war." And then there's so on at the other end of the scale is not defense. I would actually say it's peace. Imagine if you called it the Department of Peace. This would be very 1984, I think, say, well, what are we what is our our business is peace? And of course, that that's just hiding the truth. it's wrapping it in this it would be it would be like farcical to to do the department of defense in some ways is is is worse but it is you know maybe more back towards the middle of the

spectrum um because when you're spending on defense well is there ever too how much do you devalue your defense can you ever spend too much on defense and shouldn't defense also include things like fighting you know defending our country from climate change shouldn't it also be that we are uh you know that we are defending ourselves from misinformation and these things that the military intelligence community that the military transportation logistics are are used for and uh you end up with this kind of hugely expanding set of duties and I think that's way more honest to just say the department of wars purpose is to fight wars to be ready to fight wars and every dollar that we spend on it is a is a dollar that goes towards that purpose I think I actually think it would have been harder for the defense budget to grow as much as it has if you were more honest about it cuz because every you said you want to spend money

on education or war fighting ability and I think it it's a different weight than if it's def department of defense and of course imagine you said well what do you want to spend more on education healthcare or peace that would be like the ultim ultimate lie you know we're just spending more and more on peace so I'm I'm a huge fan of the name change the department's trying to get back to the basics they're trying to get rid of a lot of crust and graft and overspending overdoing even overtraining. You saw they've removed a lot of training that is not required for particular occupational specialtities.

They said no people need to focus on the things that they are doing, not this long laundry list of other of of other things.

Sure. And so a department that's getting back to the basics, I think it's good to say we're we're going you hearkens back to that time and then even independently of the history, I think it's better for the department to have an honest name.

I think there's a correlary in language. So if there's a if there's a department of defense, where's the department of offense?

Exactly. Who do we call when it's time to be offensive belligerent obnoxious? That's right. Grabby, as clearly we have been and always will be. So it's a kind of virtue signal. I mean I mean Carlin talked about the the general softening of the language and

it attracts a different kind of person too, which then it's a self-reinforcing effect. that person comes in, they change the nature more. The more the nature changes, the more the type of person that attracts changes. And so the organism over time itself reinforces more and more and more towards whatever its stated purpose uh is is is purported to be.

To what extent was your interest in forming and I it's constantly mispronounced.

Pronunciation debates don't get settled by the company. They get settled by by the by the general public. Eventually, people decide what something is called.

Well, can't we in this case defer to Tolken? I mean, I'm I'm assuming this is the case, like the sword of power.

In that case, it's probably something more like and which is elven. Um, and so this is why I've not I've not I'm actually a fan of of andil,

uh, which is which is closer to the Elven. Um, so you're a token geek full on? Oh, I'm I mean I'm a huge token geek, but I'm a geek with a high enough charisma stat to know that you can't fight people to pronounce things the elven way and still walk out of the room being a well-liked guy. So, I've I've had to learn that.

Well, when you when you when you crack open the Sylmerelion as your reference, right? You have to rec Yeah, you have to recognize, you know, look, I'll debate it with other with other, you know, token nerds, but I'm not going to I I don't need to fight about it with, you know, like CNBC when they call it when they call it Andril, right?

I just say just let it go. That's right. You bet it is. That's right. That's 100%.

You got to pick your battles. To what degree did the inefficiencies that you mentioned before, especially regarding cost,

Yep. motivate you. A guy who created Oculus Rift, sold it for a couple billion dollars, got himself fired from Facebook for donating nine grand to some pack that supported Trump to to cut to get back into this world. To what degree was your desire to save the country some money a motivating factor?

It was a huge motivating factor. And the way to look at it, you know, it's some combination of having better having better capability because we desperately needed it, but then also saving money. And these two things actually go hand in hand. If you don't have efficient innovation and you don't have efficient product creation, you'll never be able to build the right tools to move forward. In other words, think about it this way. Spending money is really just a proxy for something else. I in theory, you could just spend more and more and more on defense. And if it was only a matter of money, I'd actually be okay with it. Like it wouldn't be great, but I'd find it hard for me to become passionate about. It's hard. It's hard for me to become passionate about think something that's, you know, just saving taxpayer dollars, as good as that is.

But you have to remember that money is a proxy for something. It's a proxy for someone's time working in a factory or for a building that had to be constructed that took two years to build or for a raw materials that had to be extracted from the earth, processed, turned into something else. And so when you're spending lots of money on something, ignoring, you know, like, you know, graft and and fraud. Yeah. Uh it represents in some way the efficiency of a product. When when a product costs twice as much, it's because you're probably doing it cost twice as much as it should. It means it's twice as hard to build as it should be. Um, and that was the thing that I was really worried about because if you get into a war with another superpower and let's say that you need to start making fighter jets fast enough to replace the ones that are being shot out of the sky and you need to start building ships fast enough to protect

not just us but all our allies who are now at threat all over the world. Even if I have unlimited money like let's say financially we can print unlimited money. There is not unlimited productivity in the country

right? Even if you could somehow say Palmer, here's a hundred trillion dollars for the defense budget. A hundred times more. Well, that factory still takes two years to build. And that guy who was slowly building that wiring harness under a cost plus contract that incentivized him to do it slowly, he's he he only knows how to build harnesses in that way, slowly. And and and then the materials, maybe we selected materials that are really hard to process, really hard to mine. Maybe we don't have enough reserves of them. And so saving money really means that you're probably figuring like if I want to build something for a tenth of the cost, I'm figuring out how to build faster factories. I'm figuring out how to train people faster. I'm trying to and and now if I give myself that budget, I can actually do stuff. So yes, I care about the cost, but more as a proxy for productivity total because that's what we actually

need is the ability to make this stuff if we need to make enough of it to win a war. And interestingly regarding money on the other end of things when you run out of it, it sure seems like war follows. States that run out of money and collapse, war does tend to follow. You get strong men in power. You need people who need to seize resource seize resources. They can't do it through their own productivity and so they look outward. But I would go a step further. War can also happen through economic irrelevance. Uh there's a lot of countries here. Here's an example. I don't want to be too mean to the Dutch, but the Dutch used to have arguably the world's most powerful navy.

Sure. And there's a very reasonable question. Well, why is that not today? Why is this tradition of maritime prowess not continuing into the modern day? Even through World War I, you still had the Dutch having a quite powerful navy. And the answer is not that Dutch is not that the Dutch have uh, you know, seen this economic collapse. It's not that their population has disappeared. It's that the world grew up around them so much faster that they became irrelevant. Nobody destroyed the Dutch Navy. They just made it not something you have to think about anymore. They were made irrelevant.

Exactly. Another example of this is South Korea. South Korea has a uh rapidly declining birth rate. They're now down to about 67 births per woman on average. And you need to be at about 2.1 to meet replacement rate. And what that means is that North Korea doesn't need to fight South Korea to win. All they have to do is keep having kids and making artillery shells. And within about two generations, there's going to be eight times more North Korean military age males than South Korean. And I'm not saying military age males just because they're going to get into a fight.

Military age males are a reasonable proxy for economic productivity, right? You know, these people are who are going off, they're starting businesses, they're running factories. And then you wait four generations. Not that long, right? You can do four generations inside of a lifespan. Inside of a lifespan, you're looking at something like 16, maybe 20 times as many North Koreans as South Koreans. So, what happens when South Korea is like what happens when there's less than a million people in Soul? And the answer is it doesn't matter how smart they are and maybe they're really rich per person in Seoul, but they're economically irrelevant. And so you have to ask, is the United States going to be able to justify, let's say, fighting World War II over a country that has shrunk down to be smaller than a small town?

Your country just turned into the Dutch Navy. Exactly. And so this is the this is this is the this is the this is the real rat race that we're all stuck in whether we like it or not. But this is also

the globalized economy has made it where you have to hit a certain level of growth or you will even if you don't run out of money you become irrelevant. You become a target and people are there's this nice idea like well I've heard I've heard people say I think we would still stick up for South Korea. I say you can't possibly predict what the world looks like a lifetime from now. And I bet that Americans a lifetime from now are not willing to send their kids to go die for a tiny enclave of people they've never met on the other side of the world who are economically irrelevant to our economy. Like there's a reason that we have such strong ties with South Korea today because we have incredible economic bonds in the automotive space, the resource space, ship building, semiconductors displays TVs computers, phones. Where's your phone made? My phone's made in Korea. Uh if that's not the case, the world changes.

What do you really do in a world where most of the wars are so determined by the size of the populations?

Well, you you you have to do what Anderald is doing. You have to figure out a way to fight them autonomously. Well, I mean an important point that I often make to people is we have this time advantage on China where we were prosperous before they were. It's only an advantage in time. It's hard to imagine even talk to the most anti-Chinese, most racist guy you can think of,

Chuck, but let you know go find him and and and ask him, do you think, and he'll say, well, America's, you know, better per person than any China. And so that's why we're going to beat them in the long run. And what I would argue with them is it doesn't matter how convinced you are of American exceptionalism and superiority. How can a country of 500 million people in the long run out compete economically and military militarily a country of two or three billion people? You'd have to believe that each American is six times as productive or useful as each Chinese national. That doesn't seem likely. I I I I don't even the most anti-Chinese person is not going to say that they're that different from us because they because they aren't. I found I found the quote. Here we go.

By the way, I brought this up uh recently on Twitter in September because there's a lot of people who uh they look to Tolken and they say, "Oh, I can't believe Palmer named his company after something from the Lord of the Rings. I can't he doesn't understand the novels. They don't understand that Tolken hated war, blah, blah, blah." But so do I. That's the whole point. Tolken was not someone who uh he was not someone who was pro-war by any means. the things he saw in World War I. He made that very clear. But he did believe in good and evil and he did believe in wars that needed to be fought. And he made very clear that those are the wars you need to focus on fighting. So here's here's the quote. This is from CS Lewis. Almost the central theme of the book is the contrast between the hobbits or the Shire and the appalling destiny to which some of them are called. The terrifying discovery that the humdrum happiness of

the Shire, which they had taken for granted as something normal, is in reality a sort of local and temporary accident, that its existence depends on being protected by powers which the hobbits forget against powers which the hobbits dare not imagine.

And I think that describes a lot of Americans and a lot of American allies. They're they're being protected against powers that they forget, against forces they dare not imagine, and they forget that it is a local and temporary situation.

And you look at the map of Middle Earth and you see where the Shire is. That's right. It's far behind lines. And so you have you have you have you have the men the men of Gondorf basically holding the line, fighting every day. And this one of the interesting themes also that I think that Tolken understood, he didn't do you by the way Tolken hated allegory. I don't know if you know this. So it's very difficult to to say this is an allegory for this. It's more some of the themes around universally what is good and what is evil. You can tease out his worldview to some degree.

We take the times we live in and immediately juxtapose it to whatever the story is

and it's not quite so simple, right? It's like that's they're not really Nazis, right? But but one of the interesting things that he does call out is the the the is how you have this human nature for the people who live far away from Mordor to basically not believe any of these things. They literally don't believe in this invasion. They don't believe that these monsters exist. Contrast that with the men who are living literally on the front lines of this conflict. They are the last line of defense for the entire kingdom of man and everyone who lives behind them. you you they're not they don't have the luxury of wondering if these things are real. They don't have the luxury of of thinking that maybe evil doesn't exist. They're they're they're confronting it every day. And I think it's there's very similar analog to our modern military. You'll talk to people who say, "Oh, well, you know, I I

don't think that anyone's truly evil." And I think that nobody deserves to die. Uh, nobody deserves to die uh as a as a result of their actions. You know, we we need to bring these people, you know, at at worst. We need to try them and bring them to justice. There are a lot of people who have been on the front lines of conflicts who could never they don't have the luxury of that. someone who's been who's who's looked evil in the eye can't pretend, well, I think it doesn't exist and really we shouldn't be killing anybody.

There's nobody who deserves to die. Uh, you get to be an isolationist. That's right.

Because you're isolated. That's right. That's right. There's no isolationism in, you know, Hapsburg or the World War I Europe, right? You're like, you're sharing a border with everybody and the knives are out all of the time. Well, and I I think too in World War II, we got a really good bit of immunity uh to these problems in that every family had someone who fought. I mean, almost without exception. The draft was was was so extensive and the uh the the the number of volunteers was so broad.

There was a homeront. Exactly. And and so people understood that we were fighting for something that mattered, that we were fighting for allies who mattered, that we were fighting a just war against uh against a real foe. And I think that as those people have died off, we now live in a country where less I think it's something like I don't want to get this wrong, but I think it's less than a third of families in the US have a family member who is in the military. And you wonder what does that do to the character of a nation? And it becomes much easier for a whole family of people to become, you know, anti-military. Not not not anti-war. There's a difference between these things to become anti-military,

right? In their pursuit of being anti-war. And it's because they don't know anybody who's actually been part of it. They don't know anyone who's been part of that, at least not directly. Maybe they did in their past, but they forget. There's a lot of kids today who can't remember 9/11. Do you really think that they're going to be remembering the lessons of World War II or World War I? This is why it's such an incredible quote where it talks, you know, a sort of local and temporary accident really describes the relative peace we've had since the end of World War II till now.

It is a local and temporary accident that comes as a result of PAX Americana, this postWorld War II era.

I've heard you say in various interviews that um you'd much rather have our wars and battles being fought with the kind of hardware that you're creating. Better to have the gear over there than our blood and treasure.

That's right. But you've also made the point and I and I certainly agree with it that

if the country itself becomes disconnected from its military either consciously or unconsciously,

then we're not in the fight in the same way. And the more disconnected we get from the fight, the more likely it is

the fight will come to pass. And our goal is to avoid the fight in the same way that our goal with cars is not to crash or get tmis playing football.

Vis all the unintended consequences and language that we've talked about. H how does how are we to think about the positives of all the tech that's allowing us to fight without being there?

The US needs to stop being the world police and start being the world's gun store. In other words, we shouldn't be sending our own people to die for other count's interests. We should be giving them the tools that they need to maintain, you know, their existence as a nation that the US wants to be allied with. The my analogy I prefer is to turn them into porcupines. You give them tons of surfaceto-air missile defense systems, tons of local local, you know, local defense systems and and offensive weapons that make it where you just don't want to put this guy in between your teeth because even if you could win, it's going to be so painful you're not going to want to. Um, what you're talking about, you not about, you know, the the perils of becoming more and more likely to become involved in these wars as as the people are pulled out. I think that's one of the reasons it's so important to stop being the world police

and instead leave that decision as to whether to fight up to the people who are dealing with the consequences. So like somebody in uh somebody in Ukraine for example, they're not thinking about whether or not they'll fight on the basis of whether or not it's a robotic system or not, whether they're on the front line or the backline. For them, it's much more fundamental. It's actually a little bit like the pilot analogy earlier looking at his family. They're fighting so that their country exists.

They're in it, man. They are they are in it. I think that that's actually a very healthy motivation to fight. If if you are fighting for the existence of your country and your family and your business and your culture, you know, that's the person who should be deciding whether or not this is a life or death fight. It shouldn't be another country on the other side of the world fighting that for you. And then also, how does how does that country know when to stop fighting too, right? I think this is what we saw in the Middle East. We fought these wars in the Middle East long after the people we were supposedly helping wanted to be fighting them. And that's of course why the Taliban was able to come immediately back into power in Afghanistan. Like within weeks of the US pulling out, it's because the Afghani military that you we were propping up, they what were they fighting for, right?

They we can't want your sovereignty more than you do. Exactly. And we shouldn't be making that decision. And so I think these things go together. If you give people the tools that they need, I think that they're going to be motivated not by the fact that they have robotic weapons to fight or not fight. It's going to be about the existence of their countries. I think countries should generally not be making decisions about the ex prolonged existence or fighting decisions of another nation that is not their home. Like the US shouldn't be deciding if Ukraine continues their war or not. And the US shouldn't be deciding if Taiwan is going to defend itself or not. That has to be their decision.

Sure. And I want to give them the tools that they can use to make that decision. I believe this partly is a moral thing, but I I I can make a very practical argument that I've had with like, you know, the the kind of real politic uh GOP side of things in particular where they say, "Oh, you know, well, Palmer, sometimes we do need to go abroad and sometimes we do have interests that we have." And and my point to them is

we don't have the political capital to do that as a nation anymore. We the America is done with it. We are we we we we we burned all of that credibility that we built up during World War II. We burned most of it during Vietnam and we burned up the rest of it in the Middle East fighting this war on terror. And you will not convince Americans to go fight another war, even if it is just and this is not a judgment on whether we should. I I would argue I don't think that America could work itself up enough to go fight the Nazis again. I think that if if it came to us, they said we're gonna have to lose a few million people and we're gonna have to mobilize our whole economy, I think we literally don't have it in us, and that whether it's spiritually or morally or politically, what whatever you want to call it, we will not be able to muster the political will or capital to make that happen. And so this is kind of the

remaining solution whether you want it to be or not. Well, that that worries me.

Oh, it's it worries me too. It's worrisome. I I I want America to be in a world where if there is a just reason to rise to the occasion that we're able to. But I I just don't think that we have it in us. And I don't think the kids coming out of modern schools are are are ready to go do I I don't think that the kids who are look at the kids who are who are on the beaches in Normandy on D-Day.

Yeah. Do you think that we have a few million of those? I do not. That's the problem.

I do not. Our trust has also died in the very institutions that we used to immediately defer to.

Sure. And so building that back is way outside my pay grade. It has to happen. But I suspect it won't happen until things go splat first. Sometimes Church Hill, right? When you're marching through hell, keep keep going. You got to get through it.

Historically speaking, you're right. It's very rare that when when it's very rare that uh something with a lot of inertia stops without a sudden impact.

Well, that's just because it takes it's very Newtonian of you. That's right. The thing I think we can control, but I'm not quite sure how and I really want to get into it with you. Why were you at that energy summit? How important is our energy policy in enabling you to make the tools that we need to prevail in this coming population collapse world and um skilled labor we have to reinvigorate the trades somehow. That's why I was at that conference and you made some remarks with um with Alex that that makes me think that we might be singing out of the same himbook in this regard.

100%. So you want to have skilled jobs in manufacturing, making goods, processing minerals. I mean you can pick almost almost anything. Um it has to be competitive. And I look, this is another one of those things where we live in a globalized world. And so in a world where the US only buys stuff that's made in the US and we're not competing against anyone overseas and we don't need to export overseas, you could maybe choose a different strategy. But let's say it's a given, right? We live in a globalized world. Other countries get to sell to us and we are selling to them. If that is the case, you have to have low energy cost because it goes into everything. It drives the cost of everything. If your energy costs are too high, there won't be any jobs for skilled labor because the products that would come out of that energy cost will be too expensive to compete against foreign options here in

the US and they'll be too expensive to export to other countries. They're just going to choose other people. And so if you want there to be skilled jobs and if you want there to be, you know, jobs for people to like there has to be an economic impetus for that. And that only happens if we're competitive on energy, ideally much cheaper. The interesting about energy is you can be competitive. Uh which means like let's say you can be competitive with Asia and and and Europe and if but it's also a bit of an easy button to be hyper competitive. If I can drop my energy costs down to near zero and other countries can't do it. Now they're the ones that are screwed. Now they're the ones that are saying, "Oh my god, how do I compete with American automobiles? their cost of energy is so low that they're able to extract metals easier, process metals easier, weld metals easier, run their factories so

much more easily, and then as a result, there's all of this demand for skilled labor. They have this economy built around all these people doing this. How can we compete with them when our energy costs are five times as high? And uh I think that America is one of the few countries that is actually well positioned to turn that knob to zero. This was the dream of the early age of atomic power. It was power that was too cheap to meter. It was so cheap to make electricity it wasn't even worth keeping track of how it was being used. And

I think that uh that that dream maybe is not going to be viable on like a industrial uh scale like you know an aluminum smelting plant draws a lot of power. You it's definitely worth it's definitely worth running it through a meter. But I think that we actually will get to the point where things like residential power consumption are going to be such a rounding error that it literally isn't even worth billing people.

I just walked I just walked through a data center for the first time. Yep. Big tour Plano. Our buddies over at uh Aligned,

right, man. I I I talk about metering a thing like the the the amount of energy that it's going to take to run those things.

And we need and we need to make that energy. And the and the thing is like it's going to take everything. like we're going to need oil, we're going to need gas, we're going to need nuclear. I'm I'm a huge nuclear fan. I think we should, by the way, US has great reserves of uranium. This is another thing we have that other countries don't. We were blessed with incredible farmland and an incredible river transportation system. And isn't it just incredible that as we move into the atomic age, it turns out we also have more of the stuff you need for the atomic age than anybody else?

What a what a what what a stroke of luck that we've just kind of thrown away. And I mean in California, we're shutting down our nuclear plants just like Germany is shutting down their nuclear plants. We need more and more and more energy. There was a great bit that AOC did when the Green New Deal was going through and originally it didn't include any subsidies for nuclear power and somebody asked her, "Hey, why are there no subsidies for nuclear power? Isn't that lowering about lowering carbon emissions?" And she said, "The Green New Deal isn't about lowering carbon emissions. It's about fundamentally restructuring the power of energy generation. Power and energy generation away from private corporations into the hands of the government. I was like, "Oh my god, that's

You just said the quiet part out loud." She said the quiet and actually she's the pilot who just leveled with the crew.

I actually maxed out to AOC. I wrote a I guess it was like a $5,400 check to her campaign. Um they ended up returning it. But my my thought was, you know what, I want more people who are honest about what they're doing in politics. I'd rather have someone who's who's honest about it um than somebody who's, you know, talking out both sides of their mouth and concealing their true their true intentions. Also, she's from the Bronx and nobody from my favorite political part is likely to win the Bronx. This whole concept of climate change is predicated on the fact that nobody wants it to change, but that's not really true. This is actually, I think, one of maybe the great conspiracies of the modern time. The reality is the the global south has basically no political power globally

and they are the people who will be most negatively impacted by temperature going up a few degrees. I'm not saying it's going to be like a catastrophe that destroys the world. I'm just saying if you count the impacts positive and negative. Sure,

they probably come out negative. However, for a huge chunk of the world, the temperature going up by a degree or two is actually really good for their economy, massive for their economic stability. Look at all the land that China is going to unlock for agriculture. Look at all of the northern European nations that are going to have somewhat more agricultural independence. Russia don't even have to get into it. It's just obvious.

Siberia could. Exactly. My working hypothesis here is the real reason nobody's doing anything to uh so-called, you know, stop climate change is because a lot of people realize actually we don't really have an interest in stopping it until it gets to a certain point and then all of a sudden we're going to care. all of a sudden we're going to do all these things.

What kind of sec security clearance do you have? I think I am not supposed to get into the details in a public forum like this, but I I I have a security clearance and and I'm and it's it's appropriate for the level of information access that I have.

What level? I I could say I do I have a sec I I do have a security clearance. I I mean you how how how big is your company? We're about 4,000 people kind of like full-time truly internal people actually maybe closing on 5,000 and then if you count contractors, people who are working with us part-time people you if you count everything it's it's over 6,000 people.

Where will you be in the in the in the paththeon of raons? Well, I mean, they're they're a lot bigger than us, but this gets back to what I talked about earlier, which is that, you know, money is a proxy for productivity, and so is people. You know, h you it's possible for a company to have 10 times as many people

and still be slower than the first company. And so, I I I think we're we're definitely a lot smaller than the big guys. I mean, they have tens of thousands or like low hundreds of thousands of people if you count all the contractors working for them. Um but the but the potential

potential for you guys to scale the potential for us to scale is is is there because I I don't need that many people to do what I do. A lot of what I do for example on the manufacturing side a lot of it is automated. And it's not that it's not that we don't have any people who are doing manufacturing. We have thousands of people doing it. It's just we're augmenting them with technology so that each of them can fight with the strength of a hundred men or in our case build wiring harnesses with the strength of a thousand men or you know build composits or sensors or or or or or rocket motors but uh that that that's going to be the key. I guess what I would say is I don't measure the progress at my company that much in terms of the people. Uh I it's it's in our output like what are we making? Are we successfully making AI fighter jets, robot submarines, rockets and munitions and missiles and, you know, self- aiming

rifles and force fields? Like, if if we're making that stuff, I'm okay if my company isn't growing is if those people are becoming more and more and more capable.

And we started with the idea that, you know, when you understate or overstate a thing, it's only a matter of time until the people catch up to your smack.

That's right. Right. So here's Bill Gates, you know, six, seven years after Alexandria at all told us we had 12 years. He comes out and he says, "No, I don't think that's true. I still think it's an issue, but and 3,000 words later, he's basically walking a lot of stuff back, right?" And so all of that kind of happened because people who genuinely cared about the future of the climate and the planet

overstated it, right? They abused the language. They certainly understated the benefits too. This is what Alex makes the point. They don't talk about the millions of people in India who will die if fuel becomes more expensive because they already don't have enough to heat their homes. You know, he doesn't there's

three billion people burning dung and wood. People like to Yeah. And they don't talk about like the deaths caused by all the particullet when they burn that dung because they can't afford fossil fuels. So yeah, it's it's simultaneously overstating the negative impact and then understating or even ignoring the positive impact when really these things need to be taken as a balance. And I think the reason people haven't done that is because it means taking responsibility. Imagine that I'm a imagine I'm like a you know I'm a Euro Europolitic.

What's an easier position for me to take to say climate change is a huge problem? It's not our problem. It's being caused by the United States and by China and and by Russia, but it's a big problem and it it's kind of this act of God that we just have to try our best to stop. Who knows if we could stop it or not? Well, we're going to do our best to be good moral people and fight the good fight. Or imagine a position where he says, "I believe the global climate should be exactly this. The average should be uh should you know the average the average should be uh 65° Fahrenheit right along the meridian at exactly this point and that should be our climate target because that is what I believe will harm the right number of people and hurt the right number of people and people people the thing is you if you said this think about what happens next you say

it's it's the back of the ticket it's the truth in the fine print and they say but wait if we do that those guys who live on the equator in Africa are going to be destroyed agriculturally and what's easier to say to say I hope those people make it or to say I am willing to trade the prosperity of that African nation for our agricultural security and doubling the number of crop yields that we get from our from our marshy fields and to to do that takes respon you have to own it and take responsibility and so I think the real reason that people have been talking about climate change as this you know huge problem where everyone's causing it and all we can do is fight it together is because nobody has to take responsibility for the winners and the losers. And I wish we would just be honest and say, you know what, we're going to pick up temperature. That's what it's going to be. There's going to

be winners. There's going to be losers. We can fight it out in the UN. You know, that African nation can come and make their case. Maybe we pay them off and we say, hey, you know what? You're you you are going to get turbo screwed here. Uh we'll give you some some of the surplus profits of what we're doing here and you can use it to subsize your economy. I don't know the answer. I'm not a politician. But what I do know is that pretending that we can't control the climate in both directions is only possible if you ignore the wealth of re I have to say one more thing about forbidden truths. Did you know that geoengineering is prohibited research at many universities? A lot of these universities, what they've done is they've said you cannot research geoengineering. And they're saying, well, because geoengineering is dangerous, like what if we use geoengineering and then uh because it's able to keep the climate perfectly

stable, we start using too many fossil fuels and we cause ocean acidification. So let's say temperature is constant, but there's more carbon dioxide in the air and so the ocean's more acid. I agree that's a problem. I care a lot about marine life. I've spent a bunch of money conserving marine life and researching marine life. But the way to do that is not to prohibit people from learning about the problem and examining it. The real reason they don't want to do it is because it's a it's a forbidden fact and politically they don't want it to even enter the equation. That perhaps climate change isn't about cutting back on consumption. Perhaps there are other levers we can pull. It's it's it's as AOC said, it's not really about changing the climate. It's about moving the levers of power out of the hands of private industry and back into the hands of the people, which of course means the bureaucrats. How about this one?

Fracking. Yep. Right. I mean, this the ultimate f- word in the energy game. That's right.

My friend Harold Ham more or less pioneered it. The in the old days, if this were an oil field, there'd be 50 50 wells. That's all today. There's one.

It goes down a couple miles and it goes out. And I I don't know. I believe fracking was the approximate cause horizontal drilling the proximate cause of energy independence in this country, right?

And we still that that was such a failure of communication and there's still so much misinformation around the reality of what that is. I'm thinking now about since you mentioned the oceans um poly metallic nodules.

Oh yeah. Oh my deep sea mining. God it I mean look we just got to go get them. We've got to get them. It's a what is it a 16 to20 trillion dollar industry. You got every this is copper, nickel, cobalt and manganese in a single potatoiz nodule

and also a lot of rare earths as well. And they're there a few months from now it's going to be headline. We're we're going to have the same giant conversation about the ethical moral dilemma of going down 5,000 mters and scooping up these rocks and the Meanwhile, there's the rainforest or what's left of it.

That's right. Well, actually, here's here's another thing that's there. We're going to be doing all of this uh you know, debating whether or not we should be doing this mining. Meanwhile, Europe and America are going to keep paying for Russian minerals that are only in Russia that we could be getting off of their supply. Same thing with oil and gas. I mean, Germany's given tens of billions of dollars to Russia. They've given them more oil and gas money than they've given Ukraine's arm support. And so, like, the these things have a real trade. When you say, "We're not going to drill from oil for more oil and gas."

What you're really saying is, "We're going to fund Russia's war in Ukraine by giving them money for their oil instead." That's actually the real trade that's going on. But it's it's kind of out of sight, out of mind. That's another country. I need your uh opinion or maybe even your advice if you want to give it. Uh I'm I've been at this what 17 years now. Um trying to reinvigorate the trades.

That's right. Right. And we've had a huge amount of progress. In fact, this year we had 10 times the number of applications as we did the year before.

Wow. That's extraordinary. I'm not doing anything different. Something's tipped right now. I look at the maritime industry. You know, they need 250,000 welders and electricians for submarines. there's going to be another 100,000 for the deep sea mining, automotive, energy, AI, so forth. Like the stakes are really real. And I'm a little freaked out because after that conference where I met you, I went to a few others.

Yep. And um the people who are helping us with this national campaign are not the people who I thought would call. It's

it's uh it's Wells Fargo. It's it's Larry Frink of all people, Black Rockck, it's Fiser Investments. He's big in

the whole ESG network. It's in it's crazy. But but I think what they've done is they've they've looked into their own portfolios and they've seen a lot of companies who are just crapping up their backs, man. They're scared.

Yep. They don't know where these people are coming from. So the question is, I believe we need a national campaign. Certainly a series of statewide campaigns. I think I can get the money necessary from some unlikely places, but it's still this is the Manhattan project in my world.

Y who do I talk to? How do I get the attention of the people who are truly at the grown-up table who who I know want to help but are having a hard time looking at the difference between a big persuasive campaign versus another scholarship

Sure. program. Sure. Like where where do you think that communication needs to be?

That's interesting. like what you're talking about a persuasion campaign versus let's say just another scholarship is actually probably a better use and more productive use of money and you don't have to pay for someone's education so much as convince them hey the US is back this stuff is real the vibe shift is is underway the stock market goes up when the president says that he's going to hit 6% GDP growth partly because people just psychically decide well if he's saying that and they're going to make policy that makes that happen that means things are going to go well people also choose careers on this high schoolers decide what their degree is going to be in this like people go gold rushes are real and you can create them by saying that they're going to happen.

There's gold and then Lar Hills. Exactly. And and and so a persuasion campaign of what you're talking about probably makes a lot of sense. It's probably effective. However, my initial read is you're stepping into a poisoned environment. You're stepping into a world where one of the big problems that this government has been trying to solve is that there's been tons of money going out to these kind of softer harder to measure things and uh you know like gen gender gender awareness in Uganda and oh isn't it good that we do this or helping helping kids learn to code in Rwanda and the problem is those campaigns so many of them were they were just grafted and fraud and badly executed on top of it.

Badly executed. You things didn't things that were meant to be built didn't get built. Things that were meant to happen didn't happen. And there were a lot of things that we shouldn't have been doing. Like I'm kind of glad it didn't work because they were ridiculous propaganda campaigns anyway. So unfortunately, you're stepping into a poison. It's like a poisoned well problem. You have people who have made these things look like they're bad on its face. And so I I can tell you there's people in government who would 100% agree with what you're saying. And there's others who on their face are like, "No, we are not going to use government funds to do these types of hard to measure." You a scholarship you can measure. Did the kid go to school?

Did he get his degree? Did it work or not? Yeah. But I could also measure, do we want South Korea to make our ships?

Yep. Right now, it's an academic question. We need them to. That's right. We can't do it.

We don't have the capacity. We don't talk to Ballinger. talk to you know I mean these are your I'm asking you this question because

my current theory there by the way is we should maximize our strengths we do for example make some good power trains electronics sensors like I think we should basically say hey let's work together we're going to build parts of the superructure we're going to build power plants we're like the power plants of these ships like we should be let the US has a lot of friends around the world let's uh let's let's uh do stuff together of course in the long run we need to be building our own ships it's crazy that we're not

yes I I keep coming back to the electrician I ran into in Plano in a data center who had been poached from four other projects in the last year. Yep.

He's making 230 grand a year. He's 26 years old. He has zero debt. Yep. He learned the skill he has over like a 14-month period.

Incredible. And he's working and he his first kids on the way. And and this is a young guy. His career is only going up from here. eventually he's going to like he's not even into his real earning years.

I have to find a way to make that kid a household name. Yep. Times 100,000. The there there are a lot of men and women who are who are prospering in and around your space as a result of mastering a skill. Um now American manufacturing is really poised in a good way because I think people have realized there is a cost to outsourcing and export. I mean you've been on this for decades so like it's not new to you but uh I think a lot of people are truly just now coming to terms with the cost of exporting all of your critical industry around the world and what it looks like to be a country that can't make anything itself.

That's it. And it's scary. And I think look if I had an alarm bell here I would ring it. And I I was in the room with Howard Lutnik and Alex Karp and 36 other CEOs and the president of the United States in Pittsburgh. Yep.

When they when they announced $92 billion earmarked and allocated for data centers in Pennsylvania alone.

And there I am like just Debbie Downer going, "Hey man, you're you're talking about creating 2 million jobs in manufacturing and there are 482,000 open jobs right now we can't fill. What are we going to do?

Where they going to come from?" Right. And now you've talked about population collapse. You've talked about all these other things. And man, it's all real.

Well, it's all tied together. I mean, I'm a big pronatalist, too. I think everyone needs to have a lot more kids.

Congratulations on yours. You got I've got one so far, but I've not I have not I haven't even hit replacement rates. So, I'm I'm keeping I' No, if I I'm If I If I don't hit replacement rate, then uh then I'm I'm a I'm a real hypocrite. Uh but yeah, like I said earlier, the US can't compete with countries that have billions of people if we're only hundreds of millions of people. And so we we we we got to keep up the pace. You're very interesting as you know, but the whole Shire Hobbit ring of doom juxtiposition industrial military complex, the complexities of our language and our airline pilots and AOC and the ability.

We covered a lot of good stuff. We we made good time across a lot of ground. I'll put this conversation against um against most.

It's fun too because you you usually people just you know they they want to they want they they want to talk most people they want to talk about uh they want to talk about fighter jets you know and that's it. It's but it's fun to be able to talk about these bigger picture questions.

I can't bear to ask you questions that you that that I know you've been asked a thousand times. Is this this was a um so I' I've done two events recently where um instead of sending me I sent a robot and I teleaoperated it using a VR headset.

Um and I'm I've been getting away with it so far. Eventually the novelty is going to wear off and people people are going to want me to start showing up in person again. But man, what a timesaver when you can pull it off. And think how much I'm saving in terms of carbon emissions by not flying.

Just clone yourself, man. How hard could it be? Look at that. So, where where is this creature? Where did you send it?

So, there were two two events that I've done. There was the reindustrializ conference and then this was actually here actually uh at the at the Newport Beach Country Club uh for for for an for a recent Senate event.

This is home for you, right? Yeah, this is home. Yeah, this is home for me. I live in Newport Beach. There are so many things that the United States needs to do on the energy front if we're going to be competitive globally. And we have all the pieces. And the good news is it looks like this administration is going to allow nuclear power to really come roaring back. And that's that that's like that one piece alone is maybe half the puzzle.

Do you imagine like small reactors everywhere? So I I think that particularly for like things like factories, data centers, it doesn't make sense to have a grid that makes energy in one place and then ships it, you know, across the city to the building that uses it. They should just have on premises uh power generation. Like they should have small nuclear plants and they that way they're also not degrading everyone else's grid. Like right now if you pull from the grid you're pulling all that power that's power that you like you now have to overbuild the grid to handle things that it was meant to like people's TVs or you know running their air conditioning. And then you add in this massive constant base power load that they were never designed or intended to take. Yeah. Um the other problem is the grid has also become a political vector. So like in California most of our energy cost is not the cost

of making the energy. It's all of the uh political pulls that have been placed on top of it in form of taxes. So California has like what is it like 32 cents a kilowatt hour. The national average is like 8 cents a kilowatt hour. There's some places that are approaching two or three cents per kilowatt hour if they've got nearby sources.

Not so different at the gas pump really. Look, so like the whole point of a grid is that it's supposed to be uh cheaper to make power cheaper and more reliable to make more power at a central site and then distribute it to all of the end users. So why is it that I can run a gas generator at my house at a scale of just my house and it's cheaper than buying it from the grid? like that. So, like this is another reason I'm a big fan of of of of factories and and uh data centers building their own building their own power on board and for people being okay with that. It means you can't have somebody temporarily get into power and say, "All right, I'm going to basically put all of you under my thumb." Because it's not just the cost, it's also the threat. You can say, "Oh, I just want to tax energy more equitably." But what you're really doing is saying local data center, if you don't do what I want

politically and if you support my candidate, I'm going to make your cost go through the roof. You're no longer competitive with the data centers in the next state and so your whole company is going to go bankrupt because you can't compete with them on AI cost per token prices. Like that's a lot of power to give to a politician. So I think energy generation needs to become just like a lathe, just like a screwdriver. It's just another tool you have at your factory that you use to get the job done. Are you in a world now where people go to a thing to like get a book or watch a dock or something that you've done? I didn't even think to ask you.

If you like video games, check out mod retro.com. This is my side project I've been running since I was 15 years old.

Yeah. And we are doing things like making modern heirloom grade tributes to the most important game consoles of all time. For example, we have a uh we have a clone of the Nintendo Game Boy. It's called the Mod Retro Chromatic. It plays Game Boy and Game Boy Color Games. It has an magnesium aluminum alloy shell. It's the same metal that's used in some of our attack drones at Android. Uh the lens on it is not a piece of plastic over the screen. It's a lab grown sheet of sapphire crystal. It's the largest piece of sapphire crystal on any product anywhere in the world. And we're about to launch a new product, the M64, the Mod Retro 64, which plays Nintendo 64 games. Uh we've got some other stuff coming. Anyway, it's it's it's $199. I lose money on it. Uh, so I I've I've used my money to deeply subsidize it because I really like this type of stuff. And we've been re we've been releasing new Game Boy games,

re-releasing old Game Boy games, and even doing new releases of Game Boy games developed in the '9s that never came out. So, GameStop just launched a new uh a new game in house. We just relaunched Croc back for its 25th anniversary. Um, we're doing Rayman. We did a thing with Atari. We brought back three of their '90s classics. Uh, you can buy those in a set. And if you scroll down a little bit, you can see we have the Chromatic available in a whole bunch of different colors. So, if I'm going to get a shameless plug, that's my this is my shameless plug. It's there's no economic reason for something like this to ever exist. But I but I really wanted it to happen. And in fact, it even has a custom screen. This is the lowest resolution screen you'll find in the world right now. It's 160x 144 pixels. So it's about 80 times less pixels than your iPhone display. 80 times less.

What a delightfully shitty product, man. That's that that that's how you make it authentic. You know, we didn't want to be scaling onto a modern screen. We had to recreate

that old screen. And so uh yeah, that's that's I I wasn't even expecting, but yeah, that's my that's my that's my shameless plug. Go check out modetro.com. Check out what we're doing there. It makes a great gift for dads. Makes a great gift for husbands. Makes a great gift for boyfriends. Women like it too, but mostly but mostly this is maybe one of those hidden truths. I'll tell you it's like 90% men that are buying this stuff.

Yeah. Well, I'll tell you another hidden truth. You are some kind of geek, Palmer Lucky. I I appreciate

Come and play Dungeons and Dragons with me and my crew sometime where we we play every week D and D night is tomorrow. So, I'm a I'm a I'm a I'm I'm a wizard named Nilm 5 from from Atlantis trying to figure out what happened to my country. Anyway,

that's it. This is this is the guy with his finger on the button creating the next generation of weapons uh to protect uh truth, justice, and the American way. On behalf of uh 330 million of our compatriots, much obliged.

Thank you. If you like what you heard and even if you don't you pretty please subscribe.

Well, I hate to beg and I hate to plead, but please pretty freaking please sub. Please subscribe.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "The Department Of War Has A Mullet | Palmer Luckey #464 | The Way I Heard It"?

Palmer Lucky (Guest).

What is discussed in "The Department Of War Has A Mullet | Palmer Luckey #464 | The Way I Heard It"?

In order: 0:00 risk equilibrium, American Giant, Palmer Lucky, Airbus; 10:00 Department of War, Department of Defense, General Dynamics, Northrup; 20:00 Dutch Navy, Department of Defense, Tolken, Oculus Rift; 30:00 Tolken, The Lord of the Rings, Middle Earth; 40:00 nuclear power, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Green New Deal, Aligned; 50:00 deep sea mining, Deep Sea Mining, Fracking, energy independence; 1:00:00 nuclear power; 1:10:00 Palmer Lucky.

What is mentioned in this Mike Rowe episode?

37 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Palmer Lucky, Department of Defense, Department of War, nuclear power, autonomous weapons, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "The Department Of War Has A Mullet | Palmer Luckey #464 | The Way I Heard It"?

The episode runs 1 h 12 min; the transcript is about 14,371 words in 187 timestamped sections.

More from Mike Rowe

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 24, 2026.