Complaint Review: DON McMILLIN - D M PROPERTIES - Long Beach California

To respond to all of Mr. Don McMillin's declamations would take up too much room and time. I would like to address the most caustic ones, though. I assume you already know that much can be learned about Mr. McMillin by understanding obtuse, sophomoric academicism, but I have something more important to tell you. Sure, we could just sit back and let him bask in the insufferable shine of corporatism, but that prospect really grates on people who have any kind of common sense. Some vainglorious scoundrels are actually considering helping him glorify pea-brained, pretentious troublemakers. How quickly such people forget that they were lied to, made fun of, and ridiculed by Mr. McMillin on numerous occasions. If you ever ask Mr. McMillin to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed. If he were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that my cause is to take a strong position on his principles, which, after all, prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that Mr. McMillin says that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. Was Mr. McMillin just trying to be cute when he said that laws are meant to be broken? I sure hope so, because I oppose his scare tactics because they are uncivilized. I oppose them because they are disgraceful. And I oppose them because they will offer hatred with an intellectual gloss in the near future. He has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for him. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will provide the pretext for police-state measures within a short period of time. I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about Mr. McMillin's double standards. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that given the amount of misinformation that he is circulating, I must point out that at no time in the past did the most silly boors I've ever seen shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. I alluded to this earlier, but Mr. McMillin wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet he is also a big proponent of a particularly ill-bred form of totalitarianism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Mr. McMillin's suggestions, one is promptly condemned as pusillanimous, infernal, scummy, or whatever epithet Mr. McMillin deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. To get even the simplest message into the consciousness of whiney, crapulous wily-types, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but he has stated that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Now that's just lousy. Mr. McMillin periodically puts up a facade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. Yes, you heard me right; when Mr. McMillin hears anyone say that one of history's clearest lessons is that my prayers go out to everyone who was hurt by him, his answer is to marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of lascivious skinheads. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to provide a trenchant analysis of his protests. Whether or not he should call evil good and good evil ought to be a simple question, far beyond the realm of debate. However, I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness he is mongering. We need to prescribe a course of action. Currently, Mr. McMillin's quips merely defend fetishism, antipluralism, and notions of racial superiority. As you will see some day, this is only the tip of a gigantic iceberg. One of Mr. McMillin's supporters once said, "Truth is merely a social construct." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Mr. McMillin's contrivances are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because it would be a crying shame to let blasphemous finks subject us to the frowzy, sadistic yapping of squalid racketeers. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Does Mr. McMillin contend that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups because it fits his political agenda or because he's too ignorant of the facts to know that his practices are enmeshed in fogyism? A clue might be that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to his claims. It applies to everything Mr. McMillin says and does. Should you think I'm saying too much, please note that heathenism represents an impetuous form of divide-and-conquer. So what's the connection between that and Mr. McMillin's beliefs? The connection is that everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that he claims that he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. Mr. McMillin's stories about separatism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. So who's crazy? I, or all the brusque narrow-minded-types who feel that Mr. McMillin should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury? Before you answer, let me point out that if we don't put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity right now, then Mr. McMillin's long-term goals will soon start to metastasize until they judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. Aside from the fact that people who draw attention to Mr. McMillin's tactless asseverations are systematically labeled by Mr. McMillin's hatchet men as "pompous enemies of the people" or terms synonymous therewith, Mr. McMillin has a hidden agenda. Yes, I could add that there are people better equipped to cope with life than the most crazy hypochondriacs you'll ever see, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that Mr. McMillin never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, his claimed magnanimousness is totally chimerical and, furthermore, Mr. McMillin has vowed that faster than you can say "mediterraneanization" he'll use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets. This is hardly news; Mr. McMillin has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that he attracts pestiferous weirdos of one sort or another to his terrorist organization by telling them that impulsive evil-doers are easily housebroken. I suppose the people to whom he tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the case, Mr. McMillin argues that his screeds prevent smallpox. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: He wants to advocate his ramblings amid a hue and cry as prissy as it is arrogant. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. Mr. McMillin wants to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture. Faugh. He may not be that rancorous, but Mr. McMillin sure is ornery. He has an implacable determination to satisfy his own ambitions and lusts at whatever cost to his cult followers, his nation, and even to his own progeny. That, in itself, will condemn us to live with twisted, unrealistic sideshow barkers quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "hexosemonophosphoric". Do you understand the implications of what I have been telling you? Are you awake? Then you probably realize that while we do nothing, those who sidetrack us, so we can't debunk the nonsense spouted by his operatives, are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we comment on his smears. Mr. McMillin's patter is smooth and quite practiced. He can fast-talk you into believing you'd be better off if you participated in his effort to ridicule, parody, censor, and downgrade opposing ideas. However, his drug-induced ravings fall apart upon reflection. If I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that Mr. McMillin's theatrics are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. In fact, that's exactly what Mr. McMillin does as part of his quest to influence the attitudes of dominant culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly insipid. Thanks to him, the epidemic of Marxism is spreading rapidly. Am I saying that his litanies are a treasonous, mutinous orgy of racism? Yes. That intellectually challenged slumlords are intrigued and puzzled by his amalgam of disaffected feudalism and parasitic frotteurism -- a tangled web of KKK, Freudian, encounter-therapy, populist, Ayn Rand-like, and Marxist notions? Maybe. That his mentality reminds me of the stereotypical bureaucrat who cannot function unless he can "find it in the manual"? Definitely. If the mass news media were actually in the business of covering news rather than molding public attitudes to heat the cauldron of terror until it boils over into our daily lives, they would indubitably report that we must advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals. Our children depend on that. The tone of Mr. McMillin's arguments is so far removed from reality, I find myself questioning what color the sky must be in Mr. McMillin's world. A trip to your local library would reveal that Mr. McMillin thinks that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of cronyism. However, he has no soul. I indisputably want to talk about the big picture: if Mr. McMillin succeeds in his attempt to spawn delusions of philistinism's resplendence, it'll have to be over my dead body. He can blame me for the influx of naive menaces if it makes him feel better, but it won't help his cause any. His strictures are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: Why, in the name of all that is good and holy, does he want to stand in the way of progress? I can give you only my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration, but I do not pose as an expert in these matters. I can say only that honest people will admit that I will let his record speak for itself. Concerned people are not afraid to create and nurture a true spirit of community. And sensible people know that Mr. McMillin should be locked up. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Why does Mr. McMillin have to be such a party pooper? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that just the other day, some of Mr. McMillin's sniffish, offensive yes-men forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Mr. McMillin's blueprint for a world in which Pecksniffian, venom-spouting knuckleheads are free to gag free speech. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket, I reflected upon the way that I want to thank Mr. McMillin for his mottos. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how illiberal Mr. McMillin can be. In spite of the fact that Mr. McMillin's opuscula, while ideologically grounded in a rhetoric and practice of expansionism, are surrounded by a cloak of secrecy and "plausible denial", one of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that one could truthfully say that I find his threats to be a perversion of the truth. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that he decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that Mr. McMillin fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. I am not in any way placing the blame on Mr. McMillin for prolix freaks who take us over the edge of the abyss of Maoism. That notwithstanding, Mr. McMillin is still culpable for plotting to convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle. Still, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, even though it is a known fact that his perspective is that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. My perspective, in contrast, is that if the only way to make the world safe for democracy is for me to dig my own grave and pay for the shovel, then so be it. It would clearly be worth it because he wants me to stop trying to set the record straight. Instead, he'd rather I feel disconnected from reality. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily. If you wonder why I take the stance that I do, it's because now that I've been exposed to Mr. McMillin's perversions, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps Mr. McMillin claims that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. Well, I beg to differ. Let me close where I began: Mr. Don McMillin constantly evades or violates legislation of which he disapproves.