Well... that was certainly interesting, I guess. I mean, I sure agree with the "Racism contributes to shitty things for the "privileged" groups, too" argument, but the author here has a weird way of going about establishing it. For starters, attempting to define "white" as a non-racial category on the basis that it's inconsistently applied is pretty strange; bigots have never been the most consistent of people. Irish people can get "promoted" to white because it's an arbitrary category with a known element of No True Scotsman to it, for instance.
There also seems to be a big drive toward establishing a historical conspiracy to split the lower class, which is unnecessary to explain the current state of things, and a pretty big claim to assert without reliable sources. Xenophobia has pretty long-established roots in history, and seizing on things like ancestry for it doesn't exactly require some scheming aristocrat to spur it onward. Personally, I prefer to accept that people with apparently-reasonable ideals and an ordinary amount of self-interest can do some pretty horrible things - that history doesn't need villains.
I dunno - it just seems like a childish attempt to dress up a fairly reasonable argument in all sorts of flashy historical revision and dramatic paradigm shifts just to get people excited about it. All I see that doing is getting it shot down by people who think arguments like the one I made above imply that everything in the article is garbage. Something a lot more convincing could be mustered with an emphasis on things like the suicide rate that are straightforward facts (presumably), and a good bibliography.