portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

arts and culture

Was the film "America: From Freedom to Fascism" produced by a fascist?

I was curious about this film, so I looked into it. The website explains how the producer, Aaron Russo, "designed the first ladies bikini under wear", and "In January of 2004, he declared his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination for President of the Untied States."
The title of the film is catchy. I thought it was going to be about the Patriot Act, or the war, maybe Guantanamo...but no, it's about the Federal Reserve and the IRS, and the goddamn income tax!!!

Beware: this film was produced by a libertarian who seems to believe that the government is interfering in his god-given right to make a profit. I'm no fan of the US government in its current manisfestation, but I do believe in public education and all the other important services that the state is supposed to provide. Granted, I have not seen the film, just the trailer, and a few websites on the producer and his friends at "We the People"  http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm, but it looks pretty scary. I imagine that this guy wants to privatize everything, and promote his own version of fascism. Check out the film, but be careful of who you align with. And definitely don't drink the kool-aid!

Some background on liberatrianism from that kooky wikipedia:
 link to en.wikipedia.org

Critics (of liberatrianism) from the Left tend to focus on the economic consequences, claiming that perfectly free markets, or laissez-faire capitalism, undermines individual freedom for many people by creating social inequality, poverty, and lack of accountability for the most powerful.

The argument that property itself is theft, promoted by many anarchists, would undermine almost all libertarian capitalist theory if successfully argued. Some also argue that current property owners obtained their property unfairly, and therefore lack rightful or complete claim. In the Americas, they argue, land was stolen from its Native American owners, but applies in any context where critics believe the power of the rich enables them to gain unearned profits at the expense of their workers. More deeply, it suggests that the distinction between "initiating" and reacting with force lacks a principled basis.

Some criticize the motives of libertarians, saying that they support libertarian ideas only because they serve as a means of justifying and maintaining what these critics perceive to be their position near the top of existing social hierarchies. For instance, Wired columnist Brooke Shelbey Biggs stated that "Libertarianism is uninformed capitalist greed in civil-rights clothing" and that there are "a few issues libertarians tend to ignore when talking about the promise of a future without government interference: inherent cultural disadvantage and affirmative action; public-works projects like freeways for all those new-money Jags around Silicon Valley; funding for the arts; child-abuse prevention and intervention; medical care for the elderly; and too many more to list. They are also not likely to complain loudly about capital-gains tax cuts or other tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy".

These critics contend that the support of WTO efforts by libertarians demonstrates that libertarians are satisfied with the global status quo and would like to "lock-in" the hegemonic advantages.[22] Likewise, they say that libertarians view the very wealthy as having earned their place, while the classical liberals were often skeptical of the rich, businesses, and corporations, which they saw as aristocratic. Thomas Jefferson in particular was critical of the growth of corporations, which such critics claim would form an important part of a libertarian society.

Some critics claim that libertarianism would enable slavery per the self-ownership property right, repeal of labor laws, via contractual labor agreements, outright sale of future labor rights, and/or as a punishment for a person with unpaid debts as an indentured servant. There are even internal debates within libertarian camps as to the libertarian justification for contractual slavery and indentured labor.
elaborate? 12.Mar.2006 11:17


"it's about the Federal Reserve and the IRS, and the goddamn income tax"

your point being....?

Title: Feds shut down info:16th (federal tax) & 17th (centralized Senate) amendments never passed
Author: green
Date: 2005.09.24 09:52
Description: Peeling away the rotting layers of our centralized, uncaring one-party state: as if you were unable to guess: from 1913, it's built from repressing locally representative government and soundly backed finances.... ======== 16th amendment: Benson, ex-revenue collector for State of Illinois, in 1984, commissioned to conduct investigation into ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. Benson traveled to all 48 states which had been admitted to the Union during the 'ratification' this amendment in 1913. He found the numbers required for the 16th amendment never actually happened. It was just announced, written into 'history', people started being 'income taxed,' and those who questioned it were repressed. (By the way the Federal Reserve came in illegally in 1913 as well.) ======= 17th amendment: In the process, Benson discovered numbers aren't there for 'accepted ratification' of nationalized parties taking over state Senator positions either.

Was the 16th amendment ratified??
author: K.C.Roberts
See title above
USDC To Hear 16th Amendment Fraud Issue
DOJ Lawsuit Against Bill Benson Backfires.
Posted Oct 4, 2005 07:04 PM PST
Category: TAXES

In summary: Bill Benson, a former tax investigator, discovered that the 16th Amendment, on which the income tax is based, was not actually ratified according to the Constitution. Indeed, looking back at Secretary of State Philander Knox's letter of transmittal to Congress, he pointedly avoided using the word "ratified" and declared the amendment "in effect".

For years, tax activists have demanded that the government prove that the 16th Amendment was ratified properly. The government has refused to do so, and the courts have refused to examine the facts of the matter claiming that it is really out of their jurisdiction, opting instead to (as Knox did) simply declare it to be so from the bench (a power NOT granted judges under the Constitution). The bias of the judges is easily explained. They are, after all, employees of the government that levies the taxes, and of course are paid from tax funds.

The Department of Justice sued Benson in 2004 saying that his claims are false. Benson's lawyer argued that since the courts denied prior jurisdiction on the matter of the 16th Amendment, the lawsuit must be dismissed. The court rejected the motion to dismiss ... and walked right into a trap. Now they HAVE to allow Benson to present his evidence in court, and the judge WILL have to rule on it on its merits.

If, as Benson claims, the 16th amendment was not properly ratified, the entire income tax system collapses. More to the point, the taxpayers are owed refunds for every income tax dollar they have ever paid.



It would be nice ... 05.Oct.2005 12:40
reader 2 link

... if you would identify which Dist. Ct. is trying this case, in which circuit, and the exact name of the case! (Too much to ask?)

contact Bill Benson yourself at: 05.Oct.2005 18:16
go to the source.... link


He don't bite. Nice guy. ;-)

You can get more information on this as well.

uh 06.Oct.2005 14:21
okay link

So which states ratified the amendment and which ones didn't?


aaron russo? 12.Mar.2006 11:37

gringo starr

Do you think the megalomaniac George W. Bush will stand for this.

After all, Bush says he is the fascist gun in the world.

hey chicken little! 12.Mar.2006 12:37


You haven't seen the film yet? Shouldn't you wait until you see it
before you form an opinion?

Don't forget the "holocaust denialists" 12.Mar.2006 17:25

Walk Out

Lured by the title and the guest speaker, a bunch of us attempted to go see it in Ashland. I think we lasted about 10 minutes till we realized who was actually sponsoring it. Not to mention the articles in their newspaper about the persecution of holocaust denialists. Scary, scary people.

you should see the movie 12.Mar.2006 18:16


I'm not sure how the audience ended up being primarily baby-boomer and older, very few bikes and a lot of SUV's, but... while the film focuses on the illegitimacy of the Federal Reserve Bank, and that they do not back the printing of money with gold or anything else of value for that matter, there was a lot of radical stuff. The national ID card was brought up, with the loss of privacy associated with having one's movements and purchases tracked in a central database, and the push to promote implanting of ID chips in citizens was well-covered. The film urged viewers to refuse the national ID card, even if it meant not renewing a driver's license, and to resist the government when it strays outside the restrictions set in the US Constitution, or fails to uphold its mandates. It was encouraging that the audience, though far from the typical Indymedia / radical crowd, applauded heartily at some of the more radical statements about holding gov't accountable and taking back the country. Maybe they're tired of working two jobs or 70 hour weeks to keep up the payments on their cable TV and SUV, whatever the reason they're fed up with the leadership of this country and I think it has as much to do with the loss of civil liberties and unchecked aggression against other countries as with the tax and money systems.

give me a break 12.Mar.2006 19:36


I had a brief fling with capital-L libertarianism some years ago. I liked what they had to say about avoiding foreign intervention. But their domestic policy boiled down to, "I've got mine, Jack, now you get lost." Not an appealing bunch, I decided. But fascist? That's absurd. Look up in the dictionary what fascism actually is. You will find that fascism is NOT "any non-socialist political ideology."

don't kid yourself this is important even if it is libertarian slant film 12.Mar.2006 20:43

yet another green!

I'd rather see a United States run by the greens--AND libertarians though--to the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans. I don't believe in a one party state, though I would say that I agree with you there are some libertarians that DO believe in a one party state. Still, I want a total overhaul of the United States to bring back the U.S. Constitution and bring about more local democratic input to our callous unelected vote frauding Democrats and Republicans.

Remember only the greens and the libertarians really wanted to count the votes in Ohio and many other states where this vote fraud was going on. Cut the libs some slack, OK?

there are many definitions of fascism 12.Mar.2006 20:59


Several traits are found typified by far too many libertarians, in my opinion, including nationalism, rigid economic rules, authoritarian structures and tendencies, massive public spending for the apparatus of repression. Though I have noted the shift in many libertarians toward more sensible practices. Still the use of such labels continues to be problematic because people means different things with them. Better to address the issues, and in this case I tend to agree that the movie does not offer enough critiques. I was hoping to see a film about the rise of corporatism, which is really at the heart of what has happened in this country. The unchecked power of the corporate institution is behind the ridiculous tax codes (and lack there-of). The federal reserve is a part of that story but so is corporate personhood, and the anti-corporate laws in place when this country was founded and how they became subverted in the early 20th century. While perhaps it's good for people to become more concerned with issues of personal privacy and civil liberties it might also perhaps be detrimental to continue to offer only a small slice of the problems this country faces to people. While tax reform is something I would like to see, given the massive debt this country has accumulated in the past couple of decades we won't be seeing a repeal of an income tax anytime soon. And I'm not sure that's what this producer wants, a tax reform which will codify into law an income tax (though perhaps it could be made contingent on paying off the national debt).

TroubleMaker 24.Mar.2006 08:33

Cato the Anterior

"First you must know the rules, before you can break them"
Hemingway, attributed by my English Teacher

And before you let Wikipedia decide your mind libertarianism, perhaps you should know what you're criticizing...


"The mind, once expanded to the dimensions of larger ideas, never returns to its original size."- Oliver Wendell Holmes