科尔·艾伦是谁?刺杀特朗普未遂者的另一面

marsbitPubblicato 2026-04-27Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-04-27

编者按:2026 年 4 月 25 日,白宫记者协会晚宴发生枪击未遂事件。事发后,嫌疑人 Cole Allen 很快被简化为「极端分子」。但随着其行动前发送的「宣言」及个人背景逐步披露,这一形象开始变得更加复杂。

他究竟是谁?本文通过其简历与同学访谈,试图还原一个更接近真实的个体。Allen 并非传统意义上的边缘人物,而是拥有加州理工背景的工程师,有稳定职业、宗教信仰,也具备一套相对完整的价值体系。这与官方所强调的「反基督教极端分子」叙事并不一致——相反,他在宣言中反复引用《圣经》,试图从信仰与法律的角度,为自己的行为建立某种「正当性」。

作者进一步指出,这类个体并非孤例,而是共享一种判断:政治体系已经失灵,因此「必须有人行动」。在这一逻辑之下,暴力不再被视为异常,而是被部分人理解为一种道德责任。

当政府与媒体不断强化某种安全叙事(如「反基督教威胁」)时,或许更值得追问的是:为什么越来越多看似正常的人,会走向政治暴力。

以下为原文:

科尔·艾伦从未进入过联邦调查局庞大的国内反恐监控体系,包括一位 FBI 高级官员在内的多位消息人士向我证实了这一点。这名 31 岁的嫌疑枪手在周六试图闯入白宫记者协会晚宴,但在那之前,他看起来一直只是个再普通不过的人,直到一切突然失控。

据报道,艾伦本人也对华盛顿希尔顿酒店「离谱」的安保漏洞感到震惊。这家酒店几十年来一直承办该晚宴(也是 1981 年罗纳德·里根遇刺未遂事件的发生地)。现场视频显示,在宾客入座后,特勤局特工和华盛顿大都会警察局的安保人员还在闲聊打趣,而艾伦就这样从他们身边跑了过去。

如今,围绕艾伦的各种传言已经开始蔓延,有人称他是反基督教的极端分子,并可能得到一群左翼同伴的协助。代理司法部长托德·布兰奇表示,FBI 正在调查他是否单独行动。但问题在于:他究竟是谁?又代表着什么?

答案,来自我获取的一份他的简历副本,以及对其熟人的采访。

令人不安之处,恰恰在于它的「普通」。

艾伦于 2017 年毕业于加州理工学院,这所位于帕萨迪纳的理工名校培养出 24 位诺贝尔奖得主,并孕育了美国国家航空航天局的喷气推进实验室(JPL)。他主修机械工程,毕业后进入南加州一家小型工程公司 IJK Controls LLC 工作,从事精密硬件研发——这些技术用于在运动平台上稳定相机和传感器,广泛应用于无人机、卫星以及军事瞄准系统。同时,他还参与开发利用激光而非无线电波在设备之间传输数据的软件。

在进入加州理工之前,他曾在一家生物医疗初创公司实习,负责设计医疗设备的 3D 打印外壳,并制作用于生产过程中固定电极的专用夹具和装置。

他还自己开发电子游戏——不是在现有游戏基础上修改,而是从零开始构建。他最具代表性的作品《Bohrdom》完全由他独立完成:包括控制物体运动与碰撞的底层物理系统、750 幅原创图形,以及由他亲自创作的配乐。

他的同学表示,这在以技术能力著称的加州理工并不罕见。那里有一项传统,叫做「Ditch Day Stack」,高年级学生会为低年级设计复杂的解谜游戏,而艾伦也曾全身心投入其中。「能看得出来,他对这件事很自豪。」一位前同学这样说。

在同学们的印象中,艾伦勤奋、虔诚、为人有礼。「他在加州理工的基督徒团契里挺活跃的,」一位熟人兼前同学告诉我,「很虔诚,人也很温和。」「如果不是亲眼看到他被按在地上、脸贴着地,我根本不会相信那是他,」他说,指的是警方最终制服艾伦后流出的那张照片。

这些细节,尤其是他的宗教信仰,与特朗普总统对这起袭击的描述明显不符。

「当你读他的宣言时,他痛恨基督徒,」特朗普在接受福克斯新闻采访时说,「他痛恨基督徒,一种仇恨。」随后,多家主流媒体援引「政府内部官员」的匿名说法,反复强化了这一判断。

但宣言本身并非如此。相反,如果说有什么可能激怒了艾伦,或许是特朗普将自己塑造成耶稣基督的形象(例如那张 AI 生成的、身穿长袍、为病人治愈的特朗普图像)。此外,《纽约邮报》披露的一份疑似宣言副本显示,艾伦在为这次枪击辩护时大量援引基督教神学,逐段解析《福音书》,其方式更像是一个真正花时间研读过《圣经》的人。

在题为「对反对意见的回应」的一节中,他首先回应了「打另一边脸」的教义——这一教导出自《马太福音》5 章 38–39 节(登山宝训),耶稣在其中劝导信徒不要对个人所受伤害进行报复。

艾伦则将其重新解读为:当受害者是他人时,这一原则并不适用:

反对意见 1:作为基督徒,当别人伤害你时,应当不以牙还牙,而是选择忍让与宽恕,让其「打另一边脸」。

回应:「打另一边脸」适用于你自己被压迫的时候。我不是那个在拘留营中被强奸的人,我不是那个未经审判被处决的渔民,我不是被炸死的学生、被饿死的孩子,或是被这个政府中众多罪犯虐待的少女。

当他人遭受压迫时选择「打另一边脸」,并不是基督徒的行为,而是对压迫者罪行的共谋。

随后,他还讨论了「归凯撒的归凯撒」这一经典语句——出自《马太福音》22:21、《马可福音》12:17 和《路加福音》20:25。耶稣在被问及是否应向罗马纳税时,回答应将属于凯撒的归给凯撒,属于上帝的归给上帝。这段经文长期被用来论证对政治权威的顺从。

艾伦则从宪政角度提出异议:

反对意见 5:当归凯撒的归给凯撒。

回应:美利坚合众国是由法律统治的,而不是由某一个或几个人统治的。只要民选代表和法官不遵循法律,就没有人有义务服从他们那些非法的命令。

在宣言中,第三处涉及宗教的内容是一段简短的致谢:「感谢我的家人,无论是个人意义上的,还是教会中的,在这 31 年里给予我的爱。」

据报道,艾伦在社交平台 Bluesky 上的账号也多次提及基督教,包括本月早些时候自称「新教徒」,并多次将特朗普类比为「敌基督」。

4 月 13 日,在回应那张「特朗普扮演耶稣」的图像时,艾伦引用了《启示录》中关于敌基督的一段经文,如今回看颇具预示意味:「凡拜兽和兽像、受它名之印记的,昼夜不得安宁。」

也许最具讽刺意味的,是他前同学讲述的一件往事。

艾伦曾担任加州理工学院 Nerf(软弹枪)社团的会长,而且对这一角色相当认真。他曾反对社团内部将玩具枪「军事化」的倾向——例如将其改装得更具威力,或涂装成更接近真实武器的样子。他与校园安保密切合作,并据同学回忆,在化解冲突方面表现出相当成熟的技巧,令人印象深刻。

换句话说,这个曾经努力让玩具枪不要看起来太像真枪的人,如今却被指控(据 NBC 报道)携带一把截短霰弹枪和多把手枪,驱车横跨数州,试图刺杀总统。「这真的让人震惊,」另一位认识他的人说,「从我和他有限的交流来看,他非常聪明。」

那么,究竟发生了什么?

从路易吉·曼吉奥内到科尔·艾伦,这类枪手并不像媒体想象中的那种反社会孤僻者。他们聪明、受人欢迎,往往还带有某种理想主义色彩;没有前科;甚至会刻意避免伤及无辜——据称艾伦也是如此。但他们有一个共同的信念:政治体系已经彻底失灵,必须有人采取行动。

「我看不到还有谁在填补这个空缺,」艾伦在宣言中写道。

尽管特朗普关于艾伦「仇恨基督教」的说法并不准确,但这种表述与其国家安全指令 NSPM-7 中的逻辑一致——该文件将「反基督教」列为国内恐怖主义的一个指标。这种叙事很可能会占据主导地位,无论事实如何,FBI 及情报机构都将被要求调查所谓的「反基督教威胁」。执法机构也会以此为由申请更多用于安检与监控的预算,而这些预算很可能会获批。

真正的问题在于:是否还有人会追问,为什么越来越多看似「普通」的人,会觉得政治体系对他们的关切毫无回应,以至于最终诉诸暴力。

Letture associate

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit1 h fa

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit1 h fa

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1 h fa

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1 h fa

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit2 h fa

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit2 h fa

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3 h fa

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片