He doesn't expand much on that, unfortunately. I've suspected for some time that if groups were a little clearer about their interests, there might be fewer and not more conflicts. Proving that would take a lot of study and work with counter-factuals, and I've not world enough or time. But it doesn't take much effort to think of conflicts that started with exaggerated claims and fears. Others were and are unavoidable.
His main point is about spite and charity: charity deals with specifics. "The point I make is on behalf of reality. One’s neighbour — and even in this last instance a brute animal, who could have eaten me were she much larger and in better shape — is a real thing. Insofar as our charity is real, it is directed to real things. Insofar as we are “friends to humanity,” or “friends to the poor,” or “social justice warriors,” we are putting on a ludicrous show, in which spite adopts a pretence of charity."