So yall got proof or just making random accusations?

I'll start with the only things that even mention
women in your whole reply:

>"there's no discipline" because of single mothers

So let's at least take the whole sentence instead of this phrase-pickin yall are doing. He said "You only need drugs when there's no discipline, and when you have most of our sons being raised by single parent mothers with no help from the men in the community, there's no discipline, necessitating the need for drugs in the school."
Now that is a blanket statement to suggest that drugs are NEVER necessary, and to criticize it as a blanket statement is totally valid. Yet, if you are suggesting that Black boys aren't unnecessarily diagnosed with disorders and learning disabilities at a highly disparate rate, you'd be mistaken. If you also want to suggest that the presence of a (good) father in the home does not improve linguistic and cognitive capacities, level of academic readiness upon starting school, emotional security, confidence exploring surroundings, connections with peers, and make on less likely to get in trouble at home, school, and in the neighborhood, AND if you want to suggest that boys who see their father treating their mother respectfully aren't less likely to act aggressively toward women, you'd also be mistaken there.

As for the abortion issue, I'd be very surprised if he said "they MAKE Black women have abortions" rather than Black women being encouraged to do so. If you think limiting the number of Black babies born isn't a huge part of racism, there's a lot of historic and present ground you need to cover with regard to racism. His explanation of it is usually off or over-simplified (that would be another valid critique), but that definitely isn't a tin-foil-hat concept.

As for his adherence to the DSM's view of homosexuality...

>"I treat homosexuality and lesbianism as a mental disorder,
>which is what it has been for all of African history and
>all of American history until 1973."

It seems that your problem is what's before the comma (yet another valid criticism, all things considered), b/c he isn't lying about it being considered a mental illness until 1973. My issue with him there is that he recognizes America as a terrorist/oppressive society but uses its view, seemingly to validate his own, in this instance without even a disclaimer from what I've seen.
I'm not sure whether you share my view here or if your gripe is that he recognizes the pre-1973 DSM view and the reason it was changed.
Other than that, one would have to argue his assertion that homosexuality is an outgrowth of greco-roman culture. It's actually not arguable that white supremacy has been homo-erotic toward Black males since slavery.
I tend not to agree with him that Black people can't be born gay, but I also think there's merit to some of the things he says about experimentation and lack of guidance/examples. I've known people to attest to that from experience.

Ultimately, his views of abortion, homosexuality and interracial relationships lead to the same road... and that is combating the ongoing racism of increasing white births while limiting/preventing Black ones. As I've stated, there's quite a bit about his message that worthy of critique w/o having to fabricate anything... but this continued refusal to even quote the full sentence when quoting him just lends itself to an agenda that yall either refuse to own up to or don't realize you're a part of.