In science, there are many conservation “laws”. These speak of quantities or measures that stay the same, unchanging, in a closed system, even as the system itself undergoes change.
Take angular momentum. Spin with its momentum, which is an object’s mass times its velocity, recalling velocity is speed married to direction. You have seen conservation of angular momentum when ice skaters spin slowly with their arms outstretched, but spin faster when they draw their arms in.
Perhaps a better example for us is conservation of mass and energy in a closed system. Radiation, for instance. In alpha decay, a chunk of small matter is propelled from a larger mass, with the total mass and the energy (because of the propelling) all staying the same.
Incidentally, these laws are learned by a form of induction, as we have been discussing in Class. They are generalities induced from a handful of particularities. There is no empirical proof these laws hold everywhere and everywhen except by induction. However, that is not our point today.
This is. There is one more conservation law that science has missed, but that I believe exists. And that is the conservation of racism.
Which is to say, in any closed system the amount of racism, like mass and energy, must stay the same at all times. Here is my proof.
As everybody knows, race does not exist, which has been scientifically proved, and that the white race is inveterately racist. Individual whites might not themselves be racist, but these whites all suffer from whiteness, and whiteness is defined as racism. From whiteness comes white supremacy, which is how racism itself is generated.
Think of racism like a form of energy which emanates from whiteness, and where only those of the white race, recalling race does not exist, can suffer whiteness. Which means, of course, only the other races, which also do not exist, can suffer racism, since none of them can generate it, since they cannot have whiteness.
Now, all this being so and even obvious, how do we know that racism is conserved, and what predictions can we make based on that?
Here from 2023 are the average SAT scores by race, which doesn’t exist:
Whites, the only race that suffers whiteness, have a mean of 1082. From whiteness flows racism, which is why, as all know, blacks have a much lower average score of 908. Racism is destructive. But only sometimes.
If total racism is conserved in this closed system, it must mean the scores of some other race or races must increase. Racism must also be constructive. Is that true here? It is. The mean score of Asians is 1219. Racism has caused black scores to drop and Asian scores to rise.
The mean drop from white to black is 174 points, whereas the mean rise from white to Asian is smaller at 137. This would seem to be evidence against racism being conserved. But, seeing there are drops in other races besides blacks, one must remember that SAT scores are not linear. The difference between, say, 1220 and 1219 is much larger than the difference between 909 and 908.
I have done the math. To within a very small margin of error, which can be explained by any number of measurement peculiarities (late tests, missing data, etc.), racism is conserved in SAT scores.
Take sports. Blacks are about 13% of the USA population, but some 53% of NFL players and 70% of NBA players are black. This must be caused by racism, since without racism the percentages would be 13%.
If racism in professional sports, a closed entertainment system, is conserved, we must find that black participation in other sports is depressed. And this is exactly what we do find. Soccer has 8% American blacks, and in the NHL it’s even smaller, not even 1%. And, with one exception, hockey is the top sport.
What about that exception?
Ah, baseball is the final proof. Racism sends all the Hispanics to baseball. And where are the Asians? Badminton and ping pong. Racism is conserved in professional entertainment sports.
Yet this begs the question how? How does whiteness generate racism that forces blacks to be over-represented in football and basketball, two entirely dissimilar sports, but which also keeps blacks from hockey? Why doesn’t whiteness, say, send Asians to the ice, too? Nobody knows.
Just like why, in the closed system of the business world, racism forces Asians to be billionaires yet impoverishes blacks. Why isn’t this reversed with blacks on top? Why is it racism always sends Asians to the top of all standards tests and blacks to the bottom? Again, nobody knows. All these are open research questions.
What we do know is that total racism is conserved. That new conservation law will finally enable us to understand how important racism is.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
Hold on, has your research here been Peer Reviewed? I didn’t see a single wee P value.
The demand for racism tends to exceed the supply.
Groundbreaking work, Doc. Way ahead of CERN. Groark, Carnap, and Stove touched on this topic but you’ve unpacked the whole enchilada, dowsed it with kimchi, and fried it to a crisp. One niggle, however — I wonder how grue, or Kripke’s quus, or the Jews, might be involved?
Because Asian women are prettier and coveted by all other non races.
When I was a kid in the ’60s, racism caused more negroes (what we politely called them back then) to own used Cadillacs and smoke Kools than were owned and smoked by the general population, while my dad (white) never had a Caddy and smoked Kents. It balanced out.
Yet I knew a white guy once who had a Cadillac car. Which means there’s an Asian out there driving an F-150.
I think all the different races are from different planets and were put here by aliens in a hunger
games extravaganza that is broadcast on their respective home worlds. It has a niche following
and of course betting. One tenth of one percent of the population here is aware of all this and
takes bribes to subject the population to either positive or negative stimuli. The Asians and Whites
are currently neck and neck but the migrant spanner thrown into the white corner could be decisive.
Yep.
And you may want to look at Campbell and knaap et al circa 2001 on the limits of selection testing (dod).
Actually, How many have thought of this, as it definitely makes sense.
God made the different pigmentations and features of people, when he broke up the gathering at the Tower of Babel and changed the language of the people, as all people spoke the same language at that time, and were all in agreement, and it was then at the changing of the language, that He also moved them all to different parts of the world.
His purpose being that except in and through His Son Jesus Christ Who alone is Saviour and through only Him can anyone go to God our Father, people would never again be able to unite as one as had been done at the Tower of Babel when they all desired to build a way to the heavens and to make a name for themselves by their own power.
God bless, C-Marie
Too funny!! I thoroughly enjoyed your sense of humor, as always, to make a great point.
that complementary pairs are always found is wishful thinking, does this imply that the principal condition is also wishful thinking /sarc-or-not.
Not as many non-whites will read this article as whites, because Briggs deliberately chose to lead into it with some highfalutin chart with tons of numbers, percentages and comparative results.
Briggs knew what he was doing…! He understands the chart!
The notion of conserved quantities is viewed slightly differently in modern (meaning for the past hundred years or so) physics. While some postulated historical notions (such as Newton’s second “Law”) are still called “laws” particularly in undergraduate treatments, the view toward most conserved quantities has matured since a giant of mathematics, Emmy Noether, proved her theorems (circa 1918) that demonstrated that if a physical theory was expressed in a general form and there exists a continuous symmetry of the action (as defined explicitly in physics) then there necessarily exists a conserved quantity. In essence, she showed that conserved quantities were consequences of the structure the theory and were not postulated or otherwise surmised “laws.” She famously helped Einstein confirm that his then newly proposed general theory of gravitation (so-called general relativity) conserved energy, among other things. Her theorem has contributed to quite a few Nobel achievements, but outside of the relatively small numbers of people working on such theories, she is largely unknown. However, the specialized theoretical groups still honor her with dedicated conferences and special editions of journals devoted to her contribution to modern physics. In short, the notion of “laws” of conservation has given way to treating such relations as consequences of the properties of the descriptions of the fields (or particles, etc) involved.