Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Tea Party and Gandhi's Hammer by Asderathos Tea Party and Gandhi's Hammer by Asderathos
Glenn Beck has been ending his program with a quote from Gandhi

"Use truth as your anvil, nonviolence as your hammer and anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with nonviolence, reject it"

So actually being an artist, (in my own mind), I pictured Gandhi with a hammer marked (as in political cartoons) "Non-Violence" hammering to no avail (sparks flying) the Gadsden Flag on an anvil marked "TRUTH"

But I decided The flag should say "Tea Party" where it usually says "Don't tread on me". Should'a made it bold like the rest but this was just a political Cartoon Idea to sketch out :p

Glenn Beck on the Tea Parties - [link]

Joe Getty Speaking at a Tea Party - [link]

Lee Doren On the Bill of Rights at a Tea Party - [link]
Add a Comment:
 
:iconvivoman:
VivoMAn Featured By Owner May 5, 2011
as an indian i say fuck gandhi
Reply
:iconasderathos:
Asderathos Featured By Owner May 6, 2011  Student General Artist
More like as an idiot; as that is the required description of one who can leave a comment saying nothing but eff this, eff that.

As a fan of censored music; I say, "Forget You".
Reply
:iconisaacbaranoff:
isaacbaranoff Featured By Owner Mar 25, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Gandhi was far from perfect. He did some good things, but he was also kind of racist.
Reply
:iconasderathos:
Asderathos Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2012  Student General Artist
Considering the quote, the meaning of the drawing should be crystal clear, as the original [lying ignorant] slam on the tea party was that they were 'violent'. [Look out for grandma, she'll smack you with her lawn-chair]

But that segment of an episode of BS was FAR from convincing. The mentioned documents, but didn't even quote them. And one description of supposed 'racism' had description of nothing but what describes mere cultural superiority, a near universal aspect of culture itself.

My hating Indian food doesn't mean I hate Indians. My having no taste for their manners etc has nothing to do with considering them inherently inferior do to their race. A head hunter is inferior to me in culture, but that has nothing to do with race.

This is one of the least convincing BS eps I've seen, generally just filled with accusations; not that I know what the criteria is for Indian "Sainthood".
Reply
:iconyourbuddyguido:
yourbuddyguido Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2011   Writer
Indeed. The truth does not have an agenda.
Peace be with you.
Reply
:iconserah53000:
serah53000 Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
This is really clever and well done. Love it! :)
Reply
:iconasderathos:
Asderathos Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2011  Student General Artist
Thanks!~
Reply
:iconspicemaster:
spicemaster Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2010
YES!
Reply
:icondominous-qi:
DoMiNouS-Qi Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2010   Writer
Gandhi Is Rolling In His Grave At This Rhetorical Nonsense You, Glenn Beck And The Self-Blinding, Feverish, Religious Insane Spew. That Tea Party Document Would Shatter Under The Hammer Of Non-Violence Against The Anvil Of Truth. Actually Read About Gandhi And MLK Jr. Instead Of Just Purporting Generalized Agreements On Basic Do-Good(f)iness, And You Will Soon Learn How Much The Ideas Of Enlightenment And Contentment Dissolve The Hollow Words Spoken By These Crazy People.
Reply
:iconasderathos:
Asderathos Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2010  Student General Artist
You have just claimed that the tea party is violent. Prove it. Oh but you can't because they aren't. The only violence has been against Tea Partiers. Perhaps you've believed the label of "Tea Partier" applied to communists. Perhaps you've believed the onslaught of outright lies about it saturating the media. Here's a slogan "Not Racist, Not Violent, Just No Longer Silent".

You have just called the words of "These Crazy people" hollow. What have they said? what is the tea party's message? Do you even know? I'll tell you. The message is smaller government. Literally only Statists disagree--as the economic plights extolled as reason for greater government intervention are demonstrably caused and worsened by the growth of government.

Milton Friedman's Free To Choose - [link]

As I understand it Gandhi was not a Fascist Statist, nor an advocate for the Nanny State; nor, an economist, regardless of his advocating agrarian socialism.
Reply
:icondominous-qi:
DoMiNouS-Qi Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2010   Writer
*Sigh* If The Government In The U.S Shrinks Right Now The Corporations Will Completely Take Over. You Want That? I'm Not A Statist, I'm A Human Being Who's Trying To Think Clearly About Now! The Past Is A Memory, The Future Is An Expectation, Neither Actually Exist, Ever.

"It is hard to interest those who have everything in those who have nothing."

"Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose."
-Helen Keller
Reply
:iconisaacbaranoff:
isaacbaranoff Featured By Owner Mar 25, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
There wouldn't be corporations in a free market.
Reply
:iconasderathos:
Asderathos Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2010  Student General Artist
The only reason corporations have any where near the power they have is because of the current size of government. THE REVOKING of Federal Favoritism WILL ALLOW FOR ECONOMIC COMPETITITON. Small businesses will flourish, where CURRENTLY they are unable to compete EXACTLY BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS LOBBIED FOR BY BIG CORPS.

"those who do not know history are DOOMED to repeat it" and if you knew history you would see the pattern & slap yourself upside the head for such ignorance.

Being for an expanding Govt. is only Progressive Statism, regardless of the pitiful reasoning for it.
Reply
:icondominous-qi:
DoMiNouS-Qi Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2010   Writer
Then Why Don't We Revoke Federal Favoritism? Why Can't We Get Rid Of The Government Regulations Lobbied For By The Corporations? How Would That Shrink Or Increase The Size Of The Government? It Is The Large Bureaucratic Processes/Paperwork Which Is Slowing Down The Corporations, So They Want To Get Rid Of All The Overseeing Agencies Or At Least Severely Trim Them Down So That They Can Easily Get Away With A Lot More A Lot Faster.


"Those who understand history are condemned to watch other idiots repeat it." —Peter Lamborn Wilson


What Is The Need Of Nations? There Is No Need. I'm As Much Anti-State As You Can Get Bud.
Reply
:iconasderathos:
Asderathos Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2010  Student General Artist
With the existence of Govt regulations [beyond the minimals of golden rule-Rule of law Libertarianism]; Corporatism or "Federal Favoritism" is completely inevitable. Lobbying is a constitutional right in and of itself, and the ability of the Govt to play favorites is fueled by the reason for its growth, the establishment of "Positive Rights", "entitlements", "Hand Outs" "Spread the Wealth Around Govt Redistribution" whatever you call them; Points of enslaving the "Haves" to the "Have's Not's", and the "Have Not's" to the Govt Dole.

The solution, Repeal regulations, enforce laws.

One of the most Regulated industries in the world is Oil Drilling, PG&E is regulated out the wazoo, oh look a fireball... Regulation doesn't prevent disasters like these, in fact it causes them. If accountability were the govt's concern rather than prevention, responsibility would be the priority; sheerly out of self interest.

RE: peter Lamborn Wilson LMAO!!!~ I came up with my own paraphrase a while ago - "many who do not learn from history will become the villains in it"

You claim to be anti-State, but only pro state to limit Corps. By that logic with a proper edu-mif-ication you ought to be a Small Govt. Libertarian!~ [link]
Reply
:iconasderathos:
Asderathos Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2010  Student General Artist
:iconglennbeckplz:
Reply
:iconcrawdaddyjoe:
Crawdaddyjoe Featured By Owner Jun 2, 2010
You know Gandhi was, in addition to being a pro-feminist, vegetarian, anti-imperialist pacifist, pretty much an agrarian socialist of a non-Marxist strain, right? In other words, he believed that people should get together and cooperate for simple living and communal welfare in rural communes. In short, he's exactly the person you lot have been mocking for the last half century. Stop trying to appropriate him.
Reply
:iconasderathos:
Asderathos Featured By Owner Jun 3, 2010  Student General Artist
You would seem to be under the impression that being 'pro-feminist, vegetarian, anti-imperialist & pacifist' would somehow be in contention with the Tea Party Movement; which suggests to me that you believe the infinite number of false declarations of the leftist media & politicians about the Tea Parties Violent, Racist, & all that other BS.

By what I gather, Gandhi was a 'Communitarian' (well defined as you have said). Communes have failed miserably everywhere they have been tried. Do read "A Conservative History Of the American Left" :D and have a read about William Bradford's colony [link]

His non-violence and its worthiness, and much of his wisdom cannot be impugned for his ignorance of various economic structures' failings. You cannot impugn others' "appropriation" of Ideas they like and the use of the imagery of the men/women responsible for them just because unrelated ideas don't mesh, that would be redonculous.

I would indeed like to know who you believe "my lot" to be! I myself have never suggested that voluntary communes shouldn't be allowed to spring up; in fact any loyalty to the principles of individual sovereignty, property rights, Freedom of speech etc would demand their right and lawful allowance. What I and 'my lot' are against is not voluntary but coercive/forced redistribution.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington

and it would seem Gandhi agrees...

"I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality" -Gandhi

Maybe next I'll draw Gandhi in a Gadsden Flag T-Shirt with this quote captioned or in the description!...

___

Many claim that Martin Luther King Jr. was a 'Socialist' this would by no means diminishes the import of the civil rights movement or his part in it, were it true, only diminish the deification of a man, hopefully, rather than his worthy ideas.
___

"My 'Heroes' are all merely great ideas concisely expressed by inspired if flawed men & women"

"Deifying Flawed Humans, compromises their ideas with 'Guilt's by Association' when they're inevitably taken down, either by doubtful accusations, or facts." -me
Reply
:iconcrawdaddyjoe:
Crawdaddyjoe Featured By Owner Jun 3, 2010
You seem to be under the impression that all forms of leftism are statist, which is frankly pathetic, but to be expected from a Tea Partier. His being anti-State didn't make him less of a leftist- it made him in line with what most leftists (obviously not Stalinists, Social Democrats, or Progressives, but the rest of the left) believe.

Funny, your lot didn't seem to mind the constitution being trampled on the last few decades. You didn't seem to whine about being taxed for militarism and corporate welfare.

As for communes and collectives, your ignorance on the matter is too overwhelming to even begin to correct. All have failed? That must be why there aren't any successful communes. Oh, wait. There are. Oh, wait, communes were the primary means of social organization for most of Europe for several centuries. Oh, wait, you don't know any history, apparently.

Funny, too, how you whine about leftist bias (frankly, insulting- I've been told again and again to go to the Right, not the Left) then suggest a blatantly biased book. Do conservatives really believe that their views are 'fair and balanced'? Give me a break, and stop appropriating leftist figures.
Reply
:iconasderathos:
Asderathos Featured By Owner Jun 3, 2010  Student General Artist
Seeing as how you are surely accustomed to the idiotic but prevalent spectrum which defines the "Right" in terms that 99.9% of the "Right" would never use; (much less self avowed libertarians) bearing No resemblance to any principle held dear to them, it is no wonder that you would have derision for an alternate measure which you are ignorant of.

It would seem that you are discounting the fact that I do not just call all 'leftists', 'statists', but that I define the term "Leftist" as 'Statist' (within the sane Political spectrum Measuring Ammount of Govt) [link] While! taking into account that there are ppl who would define themselves as "Leftist" (or any of the slew of acknowledged synonyms) who are not statists. Don't you love semantics; enlightening!

As expected! you are lumping me (and presumably the Tea Parties) in with not just "Republicans" I would presume, but blind party loyalists. 40% of the Tea Parties are not "Republicans". This Two Dimensionally Dichotomous Collective Damnation on Your Terms, is ignorance personified. Perhaps at this point, you would like to break the clay chains of the Two Party Political spectrum?

Seeing as how you've got the wrong "lot", all your presumed aspersions are mere caricatures drawn from oblivitude. Obama took the sunsets out of the patriot act: "My Lot" Are against it. No, 'My Lot' didn't "whine" about "being taxed for militarism" because we do not consider, police actions to win hearts and minds, "militarism"; however we did figure out that, 1 Clinton's reduction of the military vastly limited the tactics available, forcing the hiring of merc.s in order to take any ground action, 2 that the Left Lied, not Bush [link] , & 3 that any withdrawal of foreign military presence will have to be slow.

I assume you are referring to feudalism, which if you are, is just dumb (and easily refutable). In any case, go ahead and elaborate, (There is no addressing your statement if you aren't clear, and maybe I'll add on to my Communes Blog) also, I doubt we share the standards which define "Success" defining them is critical to effective communication.

"Unbias" itself, is a myth, which when taken seriously creates an affection only for the stealthy avowel of a specific bias. As Obama said, 'if you listen to Glenn Beck, read the Huffinton Post' (As Glenn Himself Does). & Vice Versa.

I highly doubt you grasp the absolute CHASM between "Unbias" and "Fair & Balanced". Certainly my opinion of any reporter claiming unbias would Plummet. Not to confuse the avowal of attempted Unbias.
"Fair And Balanced" merely means they attempt to present alternative views; which the leftist media pretending to, or not understanding that, they are biased, don't do.

You cannot impugn others' "appropriation" of Ideas they like and the use of the imagery of the men/women responsible for them just because unrelated ideas don't mesh, that would be redonculous.

No one person agrees 100% with any other. All Figures are Open to "appropriation" its a free market of ideas. Stop being an Art Nazi.
Reply
:iconcrawdaddyjoe:
Crawdaddyjoe Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2010
The political spectrum that Beck and the JBS push has nothing to do with reality or with the political spectrum that left and right refer to. It's a partisan tool embraced solely by the American far right to discredit the left and avoid comparison to authoritarian rightists (nationalists, social conservatives) like Franco and Pinochet.

I'm lumping you in with the republicans because, despite a few tokens, the Tea Party IS overwhelmingly right-wing and partisan. The majority of independents in it are too right wing for the GOP. To pretend it isn't partisan is revisionism.

You're no militarist? The Tea Party wasn't protesting the war. The Tea Party isn't protesting runaway spending in the military-industrial complex. The Tea Party isn't protesting unnecessary arms programs. The Tea Party isn't protesting military aid to foreign regimes.

I am referring to the medieval commune system. If you knew anything about communes, you would already know this, and you would know about the Kibbutzim and other successful modern communes. It is clear that you know not of what you speak.

FOX and the rest of rightist media presents fair and balanced views? Hardly. They occasionally show progressive or weaksauce centrist views. I can't remember the last time I saw a communist, anarchist, socialist, or other hard leftist given the chance to talk, save for Beck's one-time interruption-filled badgering of an old CPUSA member.

Unrelated ideas? Gandhis ideas on satyagraha were tied intimately into the entirety of his social philosophy, including his philosophy of agrarian communalism. You can't divorce them. So, yes, I will criticize you on appropriating these images. That would be like me using Atlas Shrugged to represent the power of striking wage laborers and unions. Actually, Atlas Shrugged is itself an appropriation of the imagery of unions- and, for that matter, most of the stuff in modern libertarian party comes from a mix of classical liberalism and appropriated individualist left-anarchist theory. Y'all don't really make much of your own, do you?
Reply
:iconasderathos:
Asderathos Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2010  Student General Artist
Associating an Idea with ppl or groups (and attacking their motives) who you don't like does nothing to impugn the idea its self. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." You still don't even have an argument against this concept.

Do you know how many "Tea Parties" there are? Do you understand that the 'Tea Party Express' (The one that is Republican backed) has nothing to do with all the others? I doubt it. And in any case being "Right Wing" (As Defined By You Or Any Leftist) does nothing to discredit the principles or the motives of the grass roots Tea Parties. In fact wth is your definition of "Right Wing" Libertarians are right wing to you? That's the pathetic traditional Political spectrum invented specifically so that Fascists (Like FDR) could call Individualists, Nazis.

The tea parties weren't protesting Abortions either so they must not be Pro Abortion, or hey they must have loved Mao Tse Tung's Murdering 700 Million ppl because they weren't protesting. Don't try and make an argument against groups 1stly for inaction (before they existed) or 2ndly lack of action on issues which are outside of the broad base necessary for such large numbers. That broad base issue being the Growth of Government (which is about to control about 60% of the economy if this Financial bill passes, having already gone past the initial 43-45% with the HC Bill) and anti tax increase.

Your definition of "Militarist" is probably something tardtastic like not wanting us to Have a Military or at the very least not wanting us to maintain our status as having the best military. My Military stance is rather a complex one and I don't care to go into it atm. But the Libertarian perspectives being far ranged includes not having a standing military but a loose knit series of state Militias under the Governors & President, Isolationism, Non-Interventionalism, Strict Declarations of War Only, etc. Most Self Identified "Conservatives" register as Libertarian on the Nolan Chart.

That's Feudalism. Protectorates under a Sovereign Dictator. There has been nothing resembling any lasting version without a dictatorship... Its basically the same damn thing as a Gangster's 'Protection' Racket. Care much about Individual freedom? Doesn't seem like it. Without Property Rights you can't even own yourself.

"Kibbutzim in the early days tried to be self-sufficient in all agricultural goods, from eggs to dairy to fruits to meats, but realized this was not possible. Land was generally provided by the Jewish National Fund. Later, they became dependent on government subsidies."

"The question was not whether group settlement was preferable to individual settlement; it was rather one of either group settlement or no settlement at all."

"In soliciting donations, kibbutzim and other Zionist settlement activities presented themselves as "making the desert bloom."

[link]

This means the Kibbutzim are just "Feudalism/war Socialism" which has always 'worked', just not for any goals that the participants would much care for if the threat ever ended.

[link]

"most of these writings misunderstood essential aspects of the kibbutz. In particular,
they did not treat the essentially non-democratic and unchanging higher echelons of kibbutz
leaders and the numerous extraterritorial organizations and enterprises controlled by this elite"

"the Kibbutz societal involvement engendered profound problems, but scholars did not treat them;
nor did they treat the essentially non-democratic and unchanging higher echelons of Kibbutz
leaders whose control of these organizations enhanced the movement's bureaucratization,
oligarchization and conservatism. As these organizations adopted low-trust, low-moral
cultures contrary to Kibbutz high-trust cultures and high-moral leadership, exposure of their
cultures could have spoiled the kibbutz image of a progressive society."

Without a proper & complete time line I can't deduce exactly how & why, but it would seem the Kabbutzim have fallen quite short of "Success" by any remote definition. (Interesting topic tho)

What "rest of rightist media"? CBS? CNN? HAH!~ by any definition of 'right' that's hilarious. Only 8% of 'Journalists' self identify as "Conservative[at 6%] or Very Conservative [at 2%]. (Source) Project For Excellence in Journalism. Beck interrupts ppl in general; as most talk hosts do, its in the job description. Not being a watcher of FOX & your other imagined conservative stations I can't site all the Socialists they have on; however it seems obvious as hell that a chunk of FN's living up to "Fair And Balanced" is that they're something different the other stations which I have seen socialists on.

Yes I can Divorce them, oh look I just did! If I THINK its awesome that Teddy Roosevelt said BULLY all the time and that they softened his Image by inventing the "Teddy Bear" And I draw a pic of a teddy bear saying Bully, that doesn't mean I endorse Progressivism.

Criticize away, FREEDOM OF SPEECH :D Gandhi & MLK are the Go To models for non-violence, & to express agreement in that sentiment, I will "appropriate" them until the cows come home every day & twice on Sunday.

*Thinks about drawing the Teddy Bear saying Bully, dressed as Roosevelt...* XD

The Libertarian Ideologies, stem from "Classical Liberalism" Which predates the Statist Fascism of the left, basically invented In France by the Jacobins, the term Fascism having later been coined by Mussolini who mirrored the Jacobins in many important ways; religion of the state and all that.

"Modern Liberalism" was merely 'Progressivism' redefined by FDR after he trashed "Progressivism" with all the failed socialism, progressives started calling themselves "Liberal" despite the idiocy of it.

Anarchism as a State of Nature, is Hobbes' question of a war of all against all answered by "Mutual or Social Contract" Theories, for which the most noteworthy Rousseau, Locke, & Hobbes' answers are only the jumping off point.

Its painfully Ironic that Anarchists & Communists could escape The US's Constitution by just leaving! Of course then they'd have to deal with the realities of their philosophies.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:iconasderathos: More from Asderathos


Featured in Collections




Details

Submitted on
April 27, 2010
Image Size
6.9 MB
Resolution
2480×3040
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,618
Favourites
10 (who?)
Comments
23
Downloads
156
×