There's no special reason to assume it was Trump-staged but, and this is pretty wild, knowing Trump as we all do, there's no special reason to assume it wasn't. I mean, DonJr. has a half-million dollar entrance fee club in DC called "The Executive Branch", and nobody cares because we all know that (even though we prefer Trump to Hillary) he is as purely amoral as any human eing we can imagine. The man bilks seniors for their pennies for godsake. The binary American conversation seems to lead to: "Democrats Bad, so Trump Good!"
My grandfather died a few years ago. He was alive in 2020 but too incapacitated to vote. At 96 in 2016 he chose, for the first time, not to vote in the presidential. He voted Republican since Nixon but couldn't bring himself to cast a vote for Trump even though he supported all of his positions. I'm not saying that he was right, but the ability to have a rational view amidst the childlike political conversation here is vanishingly rare.
Would Trump fake a shooting threat on his lifefor some small reason? Of course he would. There's no question he would. Do I think he DID? No. Occam's Razor and all, but of course it needs to be counted as a non-insane possibility once one is discussing the matter.
Stochastic terrorist (plus ideologue and schizo, the target audiences for stochastic terror content).
If one accepts the hysterical narrative presented by the MSM over the past decade, trying to assassinate the president is the only sane and honorable course of action.
Staying safely at home while watching Rachel Maddow and scrolling on Bluesky is just cowardice. A fascist takeover of Our Democracy is happening!!! Do something!!!
Probably not true since everyone applying is going to have between 1500 and 1600 on the SAT. What gets one into Cal Tech is things other than grades and SAT scores since it has a less than 5% acceptance rate.
I've always been a believer that most criminals who lead others or commit a complicated crime or ideological one tend to be far more intelligent and more organized than the average violent offender.
The Secret Service had collapsed the perimeter for this dinner, for the first time. The video of him running suggests he knew where he needed to go. Now find an ad in which he was paid to participate. The CIA and FBI prey upon the mentally unwell to suggest things to.
There is no way that the Secret Service is going to put the metal detector outside of the hotel and clear people staying there. NO matter the security, there is a point where people will be outside of security and can shoot into the secure area.
'Note that there are a lot of people of his age named “Cole Allen” and a lot of older people named “Allen Cole,” so try not to get him confused with random strangers with similar names.'
This of course is why the press generally refer to assassins by their full names, a practice you occasionally hear unthinkingly ridiculed Jerry Seinfeld-style: 'Dja ever notice how they all have three names? What's up with *that*?!
There are a lot of guys named John Booth and Lee Oswald too, obviously. And probably Sirhan for that matter: dunno...
Who needs "elaborate"? Wjo even cares at this point? We common folk have as much influence over the administration as distant citizens of Rome had over their deified emperors. We can watch the ongoings for the entertainment value or we can ignore them. But one thing is for sure, we have no input, and therefore giving a shit about what the facts actually are is pretty meaningless.
Once we're playing however, there's no special reason to assume it was Trump-staged but, and this is pretty wild, knowing Trump as we all do, there's no special reason to assume it wasn't. I mean, DonJr. has a half-million dollar entrance fee club in DC called "The Executive Branch", and nobody cares because we all know that (even though we prefer Trump to Hillary) he is as purely amoral as any human eing we can imagine. The man bilks seniors for their pennies for godsake. The binary American conversation seems to lead to: "Democrats Bad, so Trump Good!"
My grandfather died a few years ago. He was alive in 2020 but too incapacitated to vote. At 96 in 2016 he chose, for the first time, not to vote in the presidential. He voted Republican since Nixon but couldn't bring himself to cast a vote for Trump even though he supported all of his positions. I'm not saying that he was right, but the ability to have a rational view amidst the childlike political conversation here is vanishingly rare.
Would Trump fake a shooting threat on his lifefor some small reason? Of course he would. There's no question he would. Do I think he DID? No. Occam's Razor and all, but of course it needs to be counted as a non-insane possibility once one is discussing the matter.
More likely because you suffer from Jew Derangement Syndrome yourself. I mean, why even bring it up? Nobody else here did.
True rhe predominant local interest is prurient in its own way, but you must you inject Jews into every conversation?
Full Disclosure: I am perhaps personally annoyed because I discuss Jews wuite regularly and in person and was hoping for local respite. Such are my biases. It may in fact be that inserting Jews into this conversation is normal and I was simply not in the mood for it. Selah.
(Summary: CalTech, early 1970s to early 2020s: Transition from "functionally" all-White-male to around 7.5% White-European male.)
CalTech, founded 1891, was effectively 100%-White-male until the 1960s.
In 1973 the first women graduated. The first Black graduate was in 1932 and the earliest meaningful presence of East Asian students also dates to the 1930s-40s, but never more than tiny percentages, though Asians were up to 12% by 1980).
White males were the large supermajority at CalTech as "late" as the early 1980s. The 70% White-male threshold was broken (downward) in about 1979. It has been downward-moving ever since. There are notable inflection-points away from White males in the early-2010s and early-2020s.
Many, back in the 1970s-80s, likely viewed the White-male supermajority status at CalTech as "a matter of course." A default state. Everyone knew that White males had founded the place (and other universities), built it up, shaped its norms, and funded it. The institution wouldn't exist without White-males.
By about 1981-82, when Steve Sailer was nearby getting an MBA, CalTech was still over two-thirds White-male but losing student-share almost every year.
In the 1970s-80s and beyond, an observer could still reasonably assume historical continuity between the all-White-male CalTech of the 1890s to 1950s/60s and the then-existing CalTech (of the 1980s/90s).
It was still the same, basically (the thought would go), except now just topped up with some supporting-cast Diversity (including women). This White, high-trust, high-functioning norm still existed and was acknowledged by all, even if sometimes tacitly via resentfulness. (The "Western Civ [course] has got to go" movement elsewhere in California dated to the 1986-87 academic-year, a sign of the gathering strength of the Wokeness movement.)
Jumping ahead to the early 2020s: Full-White US males have almost been pushed out. They are at an all-time low-point of 10% at CalTech.)
If whittling it down to Whites of "classic" European-Christian ancestry only, I guess it must be ca. 7.5% White-US-male in the early-mid 2020s. That's down from 75% in the late 1970s.
(The university's own race-demographics page, interestingly, conflates "full White" and "part White," and gives the White-% including part Whites. Federal data, which uses standardized reporting, does better. CalTech's own data is presented misleadingly. I suspect it may reflect shame at the de-Europeanization of the place; lots of self-respecting Whites wouldn't have anything to do with a <8%-White-male institution.)
___________
(2.) ASIANS
In the mid-2000s, the "Asian > White" cross-over point at CalTech was reached.
Today, the ratio is as high as 25:10 Asian:White (depending on how to sort Internationals; and when counting part-Asian multi-racial students as Asian and full-Whites only as White). That's a big reversal from the early 1980s, when the ratio was as high was 10:50 Asian:White.
[The Asian:White ratio at CalTech]
- early 1980s: 10:50
- mid-2000s: 11:10 (cross-over pint)
- mid-2020s: 25:10
In the mid- and late-2010s, Asians were at the cusp of absolute majority at CalTech. The Wokeness-directed post-2020 increases in Blacks and Hispanics blocked this. Even so, Whites as a matter of course tending to be hit harder by Wokeness directives, the Asian:White ratio continued to tilt, embarrassingly, in the direction just mentioned. There are today several Asians at CalTech for every full-White.
I've read a lot about the Asian restriction movement of the 19th century, peaking around the 1870s and a total, national-level political success by the 1880s (the famous "Chinese Exclusion Act" passed in White interests). The spirit and vigor of the thing carried well into the 20th century.
It's remarkable that when reading about the movement from the perspective of our time, 150 years later, most of it is quite recognizable when updating certain things for relevancy to this era, but the basic outlooks and arguments are the same. The predictions in the 19th century were that Asians would make a deliberate attempt to hijack high-trust White institutions, take over with a view towards monopoly control. The tilt of many U.S. universities towards Asian>WhiteEuropean balances is an updated version of this type of argument.
Cole Tomas Allen was not Asian, but he did get inserted into CalTech during this post-White transition.
__________
(3.) BLACKS & HISPANICS and the DIVERSITY-IDEOLOGY of the 2010s-20s
Would Cole Tomas Allen have filled out the "Black" circle on forms, like Obama did?
Blacks were usually at <1% at Caltech between the mid-1990s and late-2000s. Hispanics were at around 5%.
Starting abruptly in about 2012, Blacks jumped to 1.5%, and Hispanics jumped to around 11-12%. Both student-shares doubled within a few years. That's just enough time for new cohorts to move through the system, indicating the first major ideological push for Diversity at CalTech may date to ca. 2010 and was carried through in the early 2010s.
"What is the ideal level of Diversity?"
No one knew then, and it's not clear what people think now in the wake of the discrediting of Hardline Anti-White Wokeness of the early-2020s sort, its once-believers having backed away from it.
The mood of the moment on Diversity that built up in the 1990s and 2000s was: "Figure it out later. Just push for more Nonwhites now, and deprioritize White-males because they are very overadvantaged due to Racism." They put this kind of directive into place in/by the early 2010s.
A decade after that first evident Diversity Ideology topping-up, the post-2020 ramp-up in Diversity was merely building on what had already been done and celebrated by the great and the good (and which had long since become Democratic Party consensus).
(Black enrollment grew again abruptly in the early 2020s, reaching 5% by 2024. Hispanics surpassed 20% for a while in the early 2020s, outnumbering Whites for several years. Hispanics at CalTech have come back down again, and by 2025 there were again more full-Whites than full+partial Hispanics.)
The new equilibrium engineered in the early 2010s was to Black and Hispanics levels at 1.5% and 11%, respectively. These are not high "absolute" levels. But they WERE big "relative" jumps, being a doubling of slots for both groups, abruptly, compared to the norm in the 1990s-2000s.
It's obvious that in the 2000s they were embarrassed by lack of Blacks and Hispanics and similar, and this embarrassment led to the early-2010s policy (and allowed them to easily ratchet-up in 2020 with the nationwide Race Panic).
Back to Cole Tomas Allen: When he presumably entered CalTech in 2013, he (as certified Black person) had about double, or higher, the chance of getting in compared than if he had been a few years older.
Cole Tomas Allen was, in the mid-2010s, encountering an environment at CalTech that was clearly post-White-male, and which was clearly celebrating Diversity. The institutional culture and wider political culture in Southern California, worked that way and had dug in deep. People like himself, this system told Cole Tomas Allen, were morally superior.
There is a villain group, White-males, but they are hardly anywhere to be seen. When Cole Tomas Allen was at CalTech the White-male population was down to around 15%.Some of them are okay but as a group they are villains. They are almost like a hostile alien presence, infringing on the sacred racial rights of Diversity and its holy doctrines and moral directives (Wokeness).
____________
RACIAL-POLITICAL LESSON(s) of CalTech and Cole Tomas Allen
CalTech, in the mid-2010s, was in a managed transition, at at an advanced stage thereof. The race-demographics of the students between the 1970s and 2020s tell the story.
Cole Tomas Allen walked into this "managed transition." He is surely smart in IQ and test-taking terms. He may not have understood that the whole was, to a degree, artificial, like an academic version of the Truman Show movie (things he didn't see being stage-managed). His place, statistically, was part of a political grander purpose relating to runaway ideology, race-politics, and Wokeness (anti-White-male-ism).
The CalTech institution, like so many others, ahs a heritage very oriented around the White-male norm. There was a managed transition to a "post-White" state (as it is now, in the 2020s, with White-males a <10% minority).
There are probably three inflection points of interest to us: One around ca.1970 with the move to admit supporting-cast Diversity. The second ca.2010 with the drive to shore up Black & Hispanic student numbers. The third, well known still to us now, was the nightmare of self-inflicted damage of 2020. Cole Tomas Allen comes between the second and third inflection-points.
The kind of mentality cultivated in institutions like this, when under this kind of managed transition, is interesting to consider and applies very widely indeed. Because there is nothing unique about this story. The meta-story, applicable to the entire USA, is all institutions seem to tend in this same direction.
Steve Sailer and others seem to want to suggest Cole Tomas Allen was an "affirmative-action admittee." The chances are relatively high of that. But it may not be the most important thing here:
What does being present in that kind of environment do to shape one's thinking; one's sense of place, of ethnopolitical identity, of purpose; one's sense of the right and the good?
Hail, thanks for this writeup. Valuable reflections on Allen's supporting role in the managed transformation of CalTech.
> What does being present in that kind of environment do to shape one's thinking; one's sense of place, of ethnopolitical identity, of purpose; one's sense of the right and the good?
An off-to-the-side anecdote that is familiar, and darkly amusing. It wasn't until Sunday daybreak that I learned of the assassination attempt. By that point, the shooter's identity, history, photos, politics, etc. were prominent on social media. I checked in with the New York Times for "breaking news." Sailer's Law Of Upside-Down Journalism was in full force. A dozen paragraphs down, "a suspect" was in custody. Six more paragraphs, and a "Mr. Allen" was mentioned. No accompanying context or photo.
The newsroom obviously understood that protecting subscribers was a short-term project. But it was worth the effort to shield their delicate sensibilities, for a few more precious hours.
Of the attempted Trump shooters that we know about, the aggregate Subsaharan component is about 0.4/3.0 or 13%. That is about what’d be expected on an all-population basis, and that with a tiny n=3 sample. Interesting…
Like every male child of his time, I'm sure his dream was to be a "video game designer". He is the one dumb sap who didn't grow out of it, and blames the fact that he's not rich and famous on Trump. That's my theory.
Mechanical engineering is usually a pretty no-nonsense degree. I wonder if it was "expanded" to cover video game design during the great "coder" delusion at about that time?
Or?
True.
There's no special reason to assume it was Trump-staged but, and this is pretty wild, knowing Trump as we all do, there's no special reason to assume it wasn't. I mean, DonJr. has a half-million dollar entrance fee club in DC called "The Executive Branch", and nobody cares because we all know that (even though we prefer Trump to Hillary) he is as purely amoral as any human eing we can imagine. The man bilks seniors for their pennies for godsake. The binary American conversation seems to lead to: "Democrats Bad, so Trump Good!"
My grandfather died a few years ago. He was alive in 2020 but too incapacitated to vote. At 96 in 2016 he chose, for the first time, not to vote in the presidential. He voted Republican since Nixon but couldn't bring himself to cast a vote for Trump even though he supported all of his positions. I'm not saying that he was right, but the ability to have a rational view amidst the childlike political conversation here is vanishingly rare.
Would Trump fake a shooting threat on his lifefor some small reason? Of course he would. There's no question he would. Do I think he DID? No. Occam's Razor and all, but of course it needs to be counted as a non-insane possibility once one is discussing the matter.
Could be two mints in one.
Stochastic terrorist (plus ideologue and schizo, the target audiences for stochastic terror content).
If one accepts the hysterical narrative presented by the MSM over the past decade, trying to assassinate the president is the only sane and honorable course of action.
Staying safely at home while watching Rachel Maddow and scrolling on Bluesky is just cowardice. A fascist takeover of Our Democracy is happening!!! Do something!!!
A few decades in Leavenworth or ADX Florence are just what the doctor ordered.
My understanding was that Caltech didn't do much AA?
Caltech got a lot of criticism around 2000 for not letting in any blacks in its freshman class. I don't know about since then.
Caltech leaned heavy on the SAT until 2020. Got the expected results. Put testing back in 2024.
Probably not true since everyone applying is going to have between 1500 and 1600 on the SAT. What gets one into Cal Tech is things other than grades and SAT scores since it has a less than 5% acceptance rate.
I've always been a believer that most criminals who lead others or commit a complicated crime or ideological one tend to be far more intelligent and more organized than the average violent offender.
They do some, just like MIT. But not on the Harvard scale.
I believe a new university president went for diversity. A university can mask its problems with softer majors.
The Secret Service had collapsed the perimeter for this dinner, for the first time. The video of him running suggests he knew where he needed to go. Now find an ad in which he was paid to participate. The CIA and FBI prey upon the mentally unwell to suggest things to.
Did he drive across with his guns, or did he fly in and was supplied when he got to DC?
He traveled by train.
There is no way that the Secret Service is going to put the metal detector outside of the hotel and clear people staying there. NO matter the security, there is a point where people will be outside of security and can shoot into the secure area.
Not only are the two conditions not incompatible but one is a precondition of t'other.
We need ‘Common Sense Mulatto Control’.
Looks like he has a white mom and a black dad: https://x.com/dpinsen/status/2048237200010027131?s=20
What needs explanation is the middle name "Tomas."
'Note that there are a lot of people of his age named “Cole Allen” and a lot of older people named “Allen Cole,” so try not to get him confused with random strangers with similar names.'
This of course is why the press generally refer to assassins by their full names, a practice you occasionally hear unthinkingly ridiculed Jerry Seinfeld-style: 'Dja ever notice how they all have three names? What's up with *that*?!
There are a lot of guys named John Booth and Lee Oswald too, obviously. And probably Sirhan for that matter: dunno...
I'm waiting for the elaborate "Trump staged it" conspiracy theory from James Delingpole:
https://delingpole.substack.com/p/yes-everything-is-a-conspiracy-even?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
Who needs "elaborate"? Wjo even cares at this point? We common folk have as much influence over the administration as distant citizens of Rome had over their deified emperors. We can watch the ongoings for the entertainment value or we can ignore them. But one thing is for sure, we have no input, and therefore giving a shit about what the facts actually are is pretty meaningless.
Once we're playing however, there's no special reason to assume it was Trump-staged but, and this is pretty wild, knowing Trump as we all do, there's no special reason to assume it wasn't. I mean, DonJr. has a half-million dollar entrance fee club in DC called "The Executive Branch", and nobody cares because we all know that (even though we prefer Trump to Hillary) he is as purely amoral as any human eing we can imagine. The man bilks seniors for their pennies for godsake. The binary American conversation seems to lead to: "Democrats Bad, so Trump Good!"
My grandfather died a few years ago. He was alive in 2020 but too incapacitated to vote. At 96 in 2016 he chose, for the first time, not to vote in the presidential. He voted Republican since Nixon but couldn't bring himself to cast a vote for Trump even though he supported all of his positions. I'm not saying that he was right, but the ability to have a rational view amidst the childlike political conversation here is vanishingly rare.
Would Trump fake a shooting threat on his lifefor some small reason? Of course he would. There's no question he would. Do I think he DID? No. Occam's Razor and all, but of course it needs to be counted as a non-insane possibility once one is discussing the matter.
I’m not sure how they will do it, but someone, somehow will blame it on the Jews and Mossad.
More likely because you suffer from Jew Derangement Syndrome yourself. I mean, why even bring it up? Nobody else here did.
True rhe predominant local interest is prurient in its own way, but you must you inject Jews into every conversation?
Full Disclosure: I am perhaps personally annoyed because I discuss Jews wuite regularly and in person and was hoping for local respite. Such are my biases. It may in fact be that inserting Jews into this conversation is normal and I was simply not in the mood for it. Selah.
-- On CalTech racial demographics and ideology, 1980-2024 --
Some observations on April-2026 shooter Cole Tomas Allen's university:
https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics
https://www.unz.com/enrollments/?r&ID=110404&Institution=California+Institute+of+Technology
__________
(1.) WHITE MALES
(Summary: CalTech, early 1970s to early 2020s: Transition from "functionally" all-White-male to around 7.5% White-European male.)
CalTech, founded 1891, was effectively 100%-White-male until the 1960s.
In 1973 the first women graduated. The first Black graduate was in 1932 and the earliest meaningful presence of East Asian students also dates to the 1930s-40s, but never more than tiny percentages, though Asians were up to 12% by 1980).
White males were the large supermajority at CalTech as "late" as the early 1980s. The 70% White-male threshold was broken (downward) in about 1979. It has been downward-moving ever since. There are notable inflection-points away from White males in the early-2010s and early-2020s.
Many, back in the 1970s-80s, likely viewed the White-male supermajority status at CalTech as "a matter of course." A default state. Everyone knew that White males had founded the place (and other universities), built it up, shaped its norms, and funded it. The institution wouldn't exist without White-males.
By about 1981-82, when Steve Sailer was nearby getting an MBA, CalTech was still over two-thirds White-male but losing student-share almost every year.
In the 1970s-80s and beyond, an observer could still reasonably assume historical continuity between the all-White-male CalTech of the 1890s to 1950s/60s and the then-existing CalTech (of the 1980s/90s).
It was still the same, basically (the thought would go), except now just topped up with some supporting-cast Diversity (including women). This White, high-trust, high-functioning norm still existed and was acknowledged by all, even if sometimes tacitly via resentfulness. (The "Western Civ [course] has got to go" movement elsewhere in California dated to the 1986-87 academic-year, a sign of the gathering strength of the Wokeness movement.)
Jumping ahead to the early 2020s: Full-White US males have almost been pushed out. They are at an all-time low-point of 10% at CalTech.)
If whittling it down to Whites of "classic" European-Christian ancestry only, I guess it must be ca. 7.5% White-US-male in the early-mid 2020s. That's down from 75% in the late 1970s.
(The university's own race-demographics page, interestingly, conflates "full White" and "part White," and gives the White-% including part Whites. Federal data, which uses standardized reporting, does better. CalTech's own data is presented misleadingly. I suspect it may reflect shame at the de-Europeanization of the place; lots of self-respecting Whites wouldn't have anything to do with a <8%-White-male institution.)
___________
(2.) ASIANS
In the mid-2000s, the "Asian > White" cross-over point at CalTech was reached.
Today, the ratio is as high as 25:10 Asian:White (depending on how to sort Internationals; and when counting part-Asian multi-racial students as Asian and full-Whites only as White). That's a big reversal from the early 1980s, when the ratio was as high was 10:50 Asian:White.
[The Asian:White ratio at CalTech]
- early 1980s: 10:50
- mid-2000s: 11:10 (cross-over pint)
- mid-2020s: 25:10
In the mid- and late-2010s, Asians were at the cusp of absolute majority at CalTech. The Wokeness-directed post-2020 increases in Blacks and Hispanics blocked this. Even so, Whites as a matter of course tending to be hit harder by Wokeness directives, the Asian:White ratio continued to tilt, embarrassingly, in the direction just mentioned. There are today several Asians at CalTech for every full-White.
I've read a lot about the Asian restriction movement of the 19th century, peaking around the 1870s and a total, national-level political success by the 1880s (the famous "Chinese Exclusion Act" passed in White interests). The spirit and vigor of the thing carried well into the 20th century.
It's remarkable that when reading about the movement from the perspective of our time, 150 years later, most of it is quite recognizable when updating certain things for relevancy to this era, but the basic outlooks and arguments are the same. The predictions in the 19th century were that Asians would make a deliberate attempt to hijack high-trust White institutions, take over with a view towards monopoly control. The tilt of many U.S. universities towards Asian>WhiteEuropean balances is an updated version of this type of argument.
Cole Tomas Allen was not Asian, but he did get inserted into CalTech during this post-White transition.
__________
(3.) BLACKS & HISPANICS and the DIVERSITY-IDEOLOGY of the 2010s-20s
Would Cole Tomas Allen have filled out the "Black" circle on forms, like Obama did?
Blacks were usually at <1% at Caltech between the mid-1990s and late-2000s. Hispanics were at around 5%.
Starting abruptly in about 2012, Blacks jumped to 1.5%, and Hispanics jumped to around 11-12%. Both student-shares doubled within a few years. That's just enough time for new cohorts to move through the system, indicating the first major ideological push for Diversity at CalTech may date to ca. 2010 and was carried through in the early 2010s.
"What is the ideal level of Diversity?"
No one knew then, and it's not clear what people think now in the wake of the discrediting of Hardline Anti-White Wokeness of the early-2020s sort, its once-believers having backed away from it.
The mood of the moment on Diversity that built up in the 1990s and 2000s was: "Figure it out later. Just push for more Nonwhites now, and deprioritize White-males because they are very overadvantaged due to Racism." They put this kind of directive into place in/by the early 2010s.
A decade after that first evident Diversity Ideology topping-up, the post-2020 ramp-up in Diversity was merely building on what had already been done and celebrated by the great and the good (and which had long since become Democratic Party consensus).
(Black enrollment grew again abruptly in the early 2020s, reaching 5% by 2024. Hispanics surpassed 20% for a while in the early 2020s, outnumbering Whites for several years. Hispanics at CalTech have come back down again, and by 2025 there were again more full-Whites than full+partial Hispanics.)
The new equilibrium engineered in the early 2010s was to Black and Hispanics levels at 1.5% and 11%, respectively. These are not high "absolute" levels. But they WERE big "relative" jumps, being a doubling of slots for both groups, abruptly, compared to the norm in the 1990s-2000s.
It's obvious that in the 2000s they were embarrassed by lack of Blacks and Hispanics and similar, and this embarrassment led to the early-2010s policy (and allowed them to easily ratchet-up in 2020 with the nationwide Race Panic).
Back to Cole Tomas Allen: When he presumably entered CalTech in 2013, he (as certified Black person) had about double, or higher, the chance of getting in compared than if he had been a few years older.
Cole Tomas Allen was, in the mid-2010s, encountering an environment at CalTech that was clearly post-White-male, and which was clearly celebrating Diversity. The institutional culture and wider political culture in Southern California, worked that way and had dug in deep. People like himself, this system told Cole Tomas Allen, were morally superior.
There is a villain group, White-males, but they are hardly anywhere to be seen. When Cole Tomas Allen was at CalTech the White-male population was down to around 15%.Some of them are okay but as a group they are villains. They are almost like a hostile alien presence, infringing on the sacred racial rights of Diversity and its holy doctrines and moral directives (Wokeness).
____________
RACIAL-POLITICAL LESSON(s) of CalTech and Cole Tomas Allen
CalTech, in the mid-2010s, was in a managed transition, at at an advanced stage thereof. The race-demographics of the students between the 1970s and 2020s tell the story.
Cole Tomas Allen walked into this "managed transition." He is surely smart in IQ and test-taking terms. He may not have understood that the whole was, to a degree, artificial, like an academic version of the Truman Show movie (things he didn't see being stage-managed). His place, statistically, was part of a political grander purpose relating to runaway ideology, race-politics, and Wokeness (anti-White-male-ism).
The CalTech institution, like so many others, ahs a heritage very oriented around the White-male norm. There was a managed transition to a "post-White" state (as it is now, in the 2020s, with White-males a <10% minority).
There are probably three inflection points of interest to us: One around ca.1970 with the move to admit supporting-cast Diversity. The second ca.2010 with the drive to shore up Black & Hispanic student numbers. The third, well known still to us now, was the nightmare of self-inflicted damage of 2020. Cole Tomas Allen comes between the second and third inflection-points.
The kind of mentality cultivated in institutions like this, when under this kind of managed transition, is interesting to consider and applies very widely indeed. Because there is nothing unique about this story. The meta-story, applicable to the entire USA, is all institutions seem to tend in this same direction.
Steve Sailer and others seem to want to suggest Cole Tomas Allen was an "affirmative-action admittee." The chances are relatively high of that. But it may not be the most important thing here:
What does being present in that kind of environment do to shape one's thinking; one's sense of place, of ethnopolitical identity, of purpose; one's sense of the right and the good?
Hail, thanks for this writeup. Valuable reflections on Allen's supporting role in the managed transformation of CalTech.
> What does being present in that kind of environment do to shape one's thinking; one's sense of place, of ethnopolitical identity, of purpose; one's sense of the right and the good?
An off-to-the-side anecdote that is familiar, and darkly amusing. It wasn't until Sunday daybreak that I learned of the assassination attempt. By that point, the shooter's identity, history, photos, politics, etc. were prominent on social media. I checked in with the New York Times for "breaking news." Sailer's Law Of Upside-Down Journalism was in full force. A dozen paragraphs down, "a suspect" was in custody. Six more paragraphs, and a "Mr. Allen" was mentioned. No accompanying context or photo.
The newsroom obviously understood that protecting subscribers was a short-term project. But it was worth the effort to shield their delicate sensibilities, for a few more precious hours.
Of the attempted Trump shooters that we know about, the aggregate Subsaharan component is about 0.4/3.0 or 13%. That is about what’d be expected on an all-population basis, and that with a tiny n=3 sample. Interesting…
Like every male child of his time, I'm sure his dream was to be a "video game designer". He is the one dumb sap who didn't grow out of it, and blames the fact that he's not rich and famous on Trump. That's my theory.
Mechanical engineering is usually a pretty no-nonsense degree. I wonder if it was "expanded" to cover video game design during the great "coder" delusion at about that time?
Looks a little light in the loafers to me (?)