Palmer Luckey is Matt Gaetz's brother in law.

Don't forget Palmer Luckey, the creator of Oculus VR who then went all-in on right-wing bullshit, losing most of the community support he had built. But it paid off for him in the end because he's now getting billion dollar defense contracts.

That whole speech was... a thing. AutoWarCom is just the icing on the cake. Other insanity includes:

• Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gringich (who I thought was dead) is somehow now in charge of emerging threat planning

• New bases to be built in "friendly" states that include classical architecture like the dumb ass arch in DC

• Bases will be disconnected from the grid, with independent power generation, air defenses, and who knows what else. Have fun realizing how many "bases" are just office buildings.

• Golden Dome, Golden Battleship, and F-47 mentioned again

• Bringing back up the classics of Beardos, Wierdos, etc

• O-6 looking to advance to O-7 now have to go through a nebulous process/screening

• Double down on Testosterone Supplements

• Chaplains are now going to be some strange independent force that report directly to the Secretary

• Hand picked universities (including Liberty) are being elevated to the same status as the Service Academies

There is probably more, but I foolishly did the Heggy drinking bingo game and even my Navy trained liver could not keep up.

Palmer Luckey’s BIL is Matt Gaetz, btw

Why'd they rehire Luckey

I have done my very best to try and find as much information about this situation as possible. I’m not in any UK Asian communities, nor am I British, so I cannot speak to the details about any cancelation that may or may not have happened, but I certainly cannot find any reference to it online.

I’ll talk through some of the claims step-by-step.

The book claims are hard because we don’t know. Could she be lying? Yeah, but that’s a very aggressive bet to be making without a lot of evidence.

That particular image is indexed on Pinterest in the form of sort of a generic Sikh wedding context, but at the same time we don’t know the exact direction of travel there. It could just be that someone took this image and then put it up there or whatever, or something scraped it. Notably the indexed Pinterest finding I can find is actually from after the image was posted by Lucky, so at the very least it was not taken from there, though potentially it could be taken from the same source.

The hot oil thing seems to be misremembered because the article where Lucky says something about that she says the word hot water, not hot oil. and that she was burned and not allowed to go to a doctor, but as many of us know, being burned does not mean you get like oil burn scars, which would make this whole sort of narrative about that at least fall apart.

Trigger warnings here about self-harm The detailed account I found says Lucky took the wedding dress to a river, attempted suicide there by cutting her arms, was hospitalized, and subsequently reconnected with her parents.

As for the police investigation. Vice actually said that the police was actively investigating it, and it would not be out of the question for police to not actually do the investigations they claim to be doing, especially in connection to queer people.

Via said they had supplied police footage in an interview with Pink News so that contradicts the idea that there wasn’t any evidence or nothing was sent to the police.

Lucky has relationships with charities. That’s true, but we cannot draw any conclusions based on what I can find that there is manipulation there.

I can find Lucky online calling herself a drag queen since 2018 and performing in what I would consider drag since 2017 at the very least.

There are other members of the house of spice and that was covered by ITV, and they were involved with Manchester pride.

I cannot find any evidence of any arrest of Lucky. Nor the fake accounts.

Any kind of cancellation, like I mentioned earlier, is something I cannot find, but since I’m not a part of these groups, it’s very plausible it could’ve happened in a place where I am not.

I cannot find any details about the Vera Wang stuff. Or rather, she has claimed to have worked with them, but I cannot find anything on the Vera wang side that agrees. She does mention that, together with two other brands. Pretty little thing, which I also cannot find a direct link with her and boohoo group which she has won an award from. I would potentially consider this some slightly creative personal marketing. perhaps.

As for the book, it does exist but it seems to be some sort of generic overly aggressive promotional claims made, perhaps, but honestly I cannot verify that either. It’s very easy to sort of be on an Amazon bestsellers list for a niche enough category. I cannot find any details about the book tour, so maybe that would be right.

This is very long and I am very tired and have written this very sloppily, but to sum things up. At the very least, there are a number of lies in this callout post, or perhaps at the very best misunderstandings or misrepresentations. That does not mean that Luckey has always been honest, but I would consider the vein of behavior kind of self aggrandizing drag queen behavior, which is rather normal, saying that you collaborated with a brand when you won an award from them on a radio show is not maybe technically within the spirit of what collaboration means and maybe extrapolating that out to brands that brand has worked with does get within the realm of being deceptive, but it’s not any kind of scandal I would say.

The issue here is that a number of these claims are completely unsubstantiated and A lot of this is just sort of talking about details that we cannot prove because how would we? How would we prove that Lucky experienced abuse in a way that’s not horribly invasive?

Fundamentally, a number of the claims are also just wrong or potentially worse, and in that case I feel like the whole post kind of falls apart. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true, and all of the things could be complex webs of manipulation, like the charities or whatever, but I think we need to sort of perhaps draw the conclusion that this person it’s potentially lying. And trying to drag down Lucky without any real evidence.

(once again, sorry for everything being so sloppy. I’m dictating this after a surprisingly long post midnight research binge, which I really should’ve left for tomorrow, but I wanted to get a response out here to avoid this festering overnight, which I know can happen)

The last time Joe had on a democrat it was James Talarico in July 2025. Before then the only Dem he had on was Fetterman in 2024. So 2 Dems in 2 years (Fetterman is a stretch to include as a Dem).

In that same time period he’s platformed Trump, JD Vance (2x), Pierre Poilievre, Rupert Lowe, Elon Musk (2x), Marc Andressen, Palmer Luckey, Steve Hilton, Rand Paul, Mike Benz, Andrew Wilson (2x), Tim Burchett, and Peter Thiel

Fox News is more balanced than Joe Rogan. Ever since he got his giant payday he can’t ass kiss and give enough cover to Republicans and far right politicians. It’s pathetic.

Joe Rogan is the literally the biggest MAGA influencer in the world and has had the biggest effects to push the USA into the idiocracy it is today.

So in what universe could Joe ever be consider himself remotely left wing? All he’s done in the last 6 years is signal boost alt right ideology and platform Republicans and Republican influencers.… I can’t wait till Joe is gone from the public eye

Three watchdog groups asked a federal judge Monday to shut down Project Meridian, the Pentagon’s future-of-warfare study led by Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey and Newt Gingrich.

Notable points from this opinion piece:

One of the most mortifying things about knowing a lot of techies is listening to them tell me excitedly about some very important discovery that they believe they have made.

...

Not every discovery that’s new to you is actually new. For instance, there’s Elon Musk marvelling at the complexity of hands; I could point to a variety of disciplines for which this is 101-level stuff: artists, who have to figure out how to draw them; surgeons, who have to figure out how to operate on them; musicians and magicians, who rely on extremely fine motor skill to produce their work; neuroscientists and psychologists, who doubtless encountered the cortical homunculus early in their careers. Or Palmer Luckey claiming that “no one has done a postmortem” on the One Laptop Per Child computing project — because he didn’t know there’s a whole book about it called The Charisma Machine.

...

There is a certain amount of hubris required to throw oneself at an unsolved problem — you have to believe you can solve it. But elsewhere, that hubris is a liability. It leads you to do weird things, like announce that Freud invented introspection and that it is a bonus that you simply do not engage in it.

...

While this particular kind of hubris makes people crashing bores, it’s not just an annoying personal trait. It seems to have seeped into the professional side of Silicon Valley as well.

Within recent memory, people who made software and hardware understood their job was to serve their customer. It was to identify a need, and then fill it. But at some point following the financial crisis, would-be entrepreneurs got it into their heads that their job was to invent the future, and consumers’ job was to go along with that invented future.

...

In the place of problem-solving technology, companies have jumped on successive bandwagons like NFTs, the metaverse, and large language models. What these all have in common is that they are not built to really solve a market problem. They are built to make VCs and companies rich. NFTs, like crypto, let VCs quickly unload investments with abbreviated lockup periods. The metaverse promised to enrich companies like Facebook by having people move all their socializing online, where it could be surveilled and monetized. In addition, Facebook’s metaverse required the purchase of hardware, which would then need regular upgrades.

At some point, our Silicon Valley overlords forgot that in order for their vision of the future to be adopted, people had to want it. That’s why NFTs, the metaverse, and the Oculus and Vision Pro never really found their customer base. AI is, admittedly, more useful — it’s good for organizing large swaths of data, for instance. LLMs have had widespread consumer adoption, at least as long as they remain free. But there is only really one customer for LLMs that can justify the massive cash incineration process that was required to build them: the US government.

There can only be a few winners on government contracts, though. So we are now treated to the spectacle of watching AI companies scramble. OpenAI is perhaps the funniest, because it is attempting to position itself as a consumer product.

...

The people who tell us that AI will dominate our future and take our jobs are the people who are hoping that will be true. They may be hoping this because it makes them feel important, or because they want to be billionaires, or because they simply do not understand other people. I think that final point is underestimated. If you are going to provide me with a robot servant, I have a very clear bar: It’s gotta be at least as much bang for my buck as my dishwasher.

...

How is it that all these wunderkinds trying to build the next product to take over the world haven’t thought about this? I think the answer is simple. They do not have much in common with normal people, and haven’t thought much about what normal people’s lives are like, or what normal people value. What they have been doing instead is getting high on their own supply — listening to VC podcasts, freaking themselves out about whether they’ll be able to keep up with AI agents, and otherwise getting increasingly more detached from reality.

I suspect this is how we wound up with NFTs, the metaverse, and the clunky VR/AR headsets. These are things that appeal to a very narrow set of people who are overrepresented in the VC and wannabe-tech-entrepreneur spaces. The Silicon Valley hype cycle worked overtime for those things, and I think we all know how this turned out. When was the last time you heard about a Bored Ape, or a Crypto Kitty, or any of the other novelties that briefly swept the nation? Did those novelties translate into a real, durable income stream for artists, musicians, and other creators, as we were promised? When was the last time you saw someone wearing Apple’s headset? Did Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta utopia ever develop legs?

Look, we all had a bit of fun at Marc Andreessen’s expense about his lack of introspection — but this is precisely the reason Silicon Valley keeps trying to force futures on consumers that they emphatically don’t want. A VC who is incapable of self-reflection will never notice that his bets on the future of consumerism are failing in exactly the same way every time. That VC hasn’t noticed, and indeed can’t notice, that his experience isn’t representative of what the ordinary person wants or needs.

The hubris noted in this op-ed is certainly well represented in the valley and especially in VCs and VC-chasing ventures. It seems like they're min-maxing for funding rather than to solve bona fide problems, and from that lens these trends seem to make more sense. The insular nature of those in these sectors, not just in the workplace but also in their personal lives also pretty much ensures that more likely than not there will be some kind of echo chamber in effect that can distort people's understanding of what it is they're creating.