Here is the full section.
Voting Abuse
Regardless of how much money any one individual has, there are always many other individuals with similar wealth. Even the wealthiest individual rarely has much more than the next couple wealthiest combined.
Furthermore, those who have a large investment in a community also have the most to lose by
attempting to game the voting system for themselves. It would be like the CEO of a company deciding to stop paying salaries so he could pocket all of the profits. Everyone would leave to work for other companies and the company would become worthless, leaving the CEO bankrupt rather than wealthy.
Fortunately, any work that is getting a large concentration of votes is also gaining the most scrutiny (publicity). Through the addition of negative-voting it is possible for many smaller stakeholders to nullify the voting power of collusive groups or defecting large stakeholders. Furthermore, large-stakeholders have more to lose if the currency falls in value due to abuse than they might gain by voting for themselves. In fact, honest large stakeholders are likely to be more effective by policing abuse and using negative voting than they would be by voting for smaller contributions.
The use of negative-voting to keep people from abusing the system leverages the crab mentality that many people have when it is perceived that one individual is profiting at the expense of everyone else.
While crab mentality normally refers to short-sighted people keeping good people down, it is also what allows good people to keep bad people down. The only “problem” with crab mentality is when people wrongly believe someone is profiting at everyone else's expense.
Your argument would be totally sound if it weren't for the fact that the vast majority of his rewards come from himself and one other individual. haejin and Ranchorelaxo represent a collusive group, as mentioned in the same section of the whitepaper you quoted. As such, they are attempting to game the system for themselves.
You state that the whitepaper warns against the crab mentality. However, negative voting is described as fortunate and the scrutiny of heavily upvoted posts is seen as a positive. It is that scrutiny which led to the discovery of ranchorelaxo, an inactive whale with virtually no interaction other than to upvote haejin and downvote according to haejin's will.
All indications from haejin are that he does not intend to stick around for very long. While other whales are strategizing ways to improve the platform, he chooses only to defend the highest paying blog in Steem, his own self/collusive-voted blog. Now, nobody is saying he has to be involved in any other aspect of Steem, but he actually took it the other way by threatening to counter every single one of steemcleaner's votes. This action proves that he doesn't really care about Steemit or Steem long term. To him, it's just another wave he can ride in on and jump off when he's though milking it.
Has haejin suffered insults? Yes. Is being called "Donkey" racist? No. Is being singled out for bad grammar racist, no. Haejin has dealt a fair share of insults himself. Neither his insults nor the insults from others are truly relevant to this war.