Philosophy

I don't know if this is your theory, if you just subscribe to it, or are just sharing something different, but wow, what a load of bunk.
It's nothing more than a longwinded way to protect the feelings of the privileged and avoid naming the actual cause of the problem - capitalism.
There is no mystery, there is no confusion ,there are only people who benefit from it who want to find other things to blame so that they don't have to act against (what they think are) their own interests.
Yes, division is bad, but it isn't those who are divided who caused it, nor should they be framed as "separatists" or whatever when they (we) seek our own segregated spaces for our own safety in a world that has made us a target anywhere outside of those spaces.

I get that it's hard to face reality, but surely it's harder to make up all these excuses and do all the mental gymnastics to avoid facing it?

There's certainly room for a dispassionate analysis of the social battle over discrimination and the presumptions made by and motivations of those who oppose it, and even a relatively generous analysis of those who engage in it or even advocate for it.

This is not it though. Underneath all of the pseudo-scholarly trappings, this is just a painfully blatant bit of apologia, attempting to somehow normalize bigotry.

The author's intellectual dishonesty is neatly illustrated when they address the fact that there's no commonly accepted umbrella term for those who oppose bigotry. They present a number of possible explanations for that fact, but conveniently fail to mention the rather self-evident actual reason for it - because opposition to it is such a fundamental moral position that it's rightly seen as simply the default, and the only thing that might need a name to distinguish it is an opposing view.

Exactly as it's the case that there is no, because there need be no, umbrella term for those who oppose theft, or rape, or murder.

As if that wasn't enough, the author again reveals their intellectual dishonesty in the section in which they address the assertion of "Kingists" that "aKingists" engage in hate.

Everything in response to that is then framed as if the "Kingists" accuse the "aKingists" of hating the credo of "Kingism" or of hating those who practice "Kingism."

But that's not what "Kingists" are referring to when they accuse "aKingists" of hate. They're rather obviously referring to the hate that in fact defines the "aKingist" position - the hate of some other race/ethnicity/gender/etc. "Kingists" accuse "aKingists" of hate simply because hate is the specific thing the practice of which defines their position.

And I have little doubt that the author goes on to reveal their fundamental intellectual dishonesty some more, but that was more than enough for me.