White privilege is the result of the dictatorship of mankind’s irrational fears and prejudices upon society, instead of the ideals of law. How often has mankind used his abilities for purely good, selfless acts? Very seldom. As the arbiters of cultural norms, the same class of people who would’ve owned slaves in the 1800s currently decides the nature of our society’s moral identity. Members of the arbiter-class possessing the greatest level of advantage influence common policy in order to maximize and prolong that advantage, and every substratum of that class shares in the advantages of being associated with the arbiter-class.

Systemic change must come from the solidarity between the socially criminalized (in this case, the non-white) and the white witnesses to the injustice of this so-called advantage. They are witnesses to it by way of being able to share in it and often doing so: sharing in a completely arbitrary benefit to the historicistically verifiable dominance of white over non-white. Thus, any member of the witness-class that would form solidarity with the socially criminalized class does so upon realization of the injustice inherent in sharing in a benefit that is not earned, but conferred as a historicistic fact by those who wish to maintain race-based inequality for their own gain.

Whether we are willing to weaken hidden systems of advantage depends on the existence and provision of a replacement advantage. Complicity in the arrangement of a moral and physical dictatorship resulting in years of oppression will compel some people to use their own power to, in effect, weaken themselves through voting, reforms, and the usual conventional means of social change.

There will, however, be a large contingent of group-minded persons who cannot disassociate themselves from the arbiter-class to which they have perpetually aspired. The division of race, much like the division of labor, sex, religion, and political discipline, is another means by which the arbiter-classes exploit the differences between the witness-classes and the socially criminalized groups in order to demonstrate moral and social superiority and in so doing encourage the conformist witness-classes to associate themselves with the prevailing arbiter-class and dissassociate themselves from the social criminals. As witnesses in their own trial, such conformists would defer to the judgment of the arbiter because he is in power and has always been in power. Such a conformist is unwilling to challenge his beliefs. To do so would be to admit a lifelong misperception: that power-possession is directly related to dividing people by race, sex, religion, et cetera, and that to do so makes one powerful. The dictates and priorities of his lifetime and even his upbringing won’t survive this singular assault on his idea of correctness, and nor would his conscience at having not just accepted the advantages of whiteness, but at having worked to advance them.

Moreover, possessing the monetary resources to choose the class with which to associate confers a sense of ownership on that choice; if one is rich, one’s choice–to exploit racial differences, political differences, et cetera, for greater personal gain and more influence–is worth more. If one is poor, one has no choice, for the poor are another socially criminalized group, to be influenced and never to influence. All while regrettably admiring those who can afford to buy into the arbiter-upheld white advantages and aspire to greater and greater heights of white opportunity, which is one manner in which poor people and the witness-class might find some similarity.

Therefore, to reiterate, there must be some replacement advantage since the monetary- and status-related advantages carry so many interrelated incentives. The only incentive for the secession of power is power or its equivalent, hence the nature of that replacement advantage must be power or its equivalent. Since Whitey will be, by definition, ceding power by way of his own power, to paraphrase the author, he may wish to use his power to create a completely New Society with new dynamics and resources. Whitey’s motivations must therefore be based on achieving equality in that Society, not, in any way, on recreating or relabeling the old society in order to maintain his race-based advantages (such recreations and relabelings are often referred to “reforms”). The assumption that the flawed power mechanisms of the old society are incapable of accommodating racial equality cannot be questioned or revised.

If such a New Society were created, the replacement advantage would be the power to take part in Humanity’s Collective Destiny as witnesses of his own future, while money and gender and race and religion all fall behind, mere remnants of a time when a person’s differences helped him more than his similarities. The trick is getting Whitey to admit the error of nearly his entire existence, and to see empowerment in that admission.