In The Racial Contract, what is one point the author makes?

An important point Mills makes is that the "social contract" does not actually mean what it says. So, we are led to ask: "What does it really mean?"
In his book, Mills mentions traditional social contract theorists such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. He contends that the "social contract" is both political and moral in nature, where government and the governed coexist in a state of mutual consent. In other words, the governed must consent before the government gains any sort of moral or political legitimacy.
Mills argues that Locke's and Kant's versions of the social contract hold true in the "social contract" of today. Locke and Kant maintained that an intrinsic moral code is encapsulated in a political social contract. Yes, all persons are to be respected, but moral principles can be rationalized according to each person's worldview. Mills maintains that it is this "rationalization" that denies nonwhites their personhood.
On the other hand, Hobbes maintained that self-interest is our biggest motivator in life and that we act morally (and consent to the government's authority) because it benefits us.
Mills makes the point that the "social contract" is not Hobbesian but rather Lockean (or Kantian) in nature. He argues that the social contract is committed to "moral egalitarianism" or even racial equality. In fact, the intrinsic moral code in the Lockean and Kantian social contract is opposed to the "traditionalist hierarchical ideology of the old feudal order, the ideology of inherent ascribed status and natural subordination."
This idea of moral and political egalitarianism is encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. However, the actual truth (according to Mills) is that our present "social contract" does not admit of the need for Lockean and Kantian notions of equality. He argues that the "social contract" is color coded and restricts the notion of equality to whites. Mills claims that today's "social contract" is Kantian or Lockean in nature, but it does not result in equality for all.