Was Mike Baron always a right-wing extremist?

[Aaron Kashtan]

I don't think I can support Nexus anymore because Mike Baron's politics, as represented in his posts (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mbaron/2009/02/27/68578/) at the conservative site Big Hollywood, are just reprehensible. He thinks that Atlas Shrugged is a perfect representation of the current state of American politics, that Islam is inherently evil, and that Obama is just like Zeiffer Meird. (And he doesn't remember his own work very well, either -- he says it was Zeiffer Meird, not Clausius, who created the Heads.)

So what I want to know is, is this a new development, or has Baron always been like this? My feeling is that the politics of the early Nexus stories were much more complex and nuanced than Baron's current political ideas, which are about as unsubtle, extremist, and black-and-white as you can get. When Nexus killed evil people, he always felt extremely ambivalent and guilty about it, and some of the people he killed hardly seemed to deserve it.

Has Baron's thinking changed in recent years? Or have I been misreading Nexus, and was Baron always such an arch-conservative?

[Global Honored]

I believe you are mislabeling Baron. He's not ultra-conservative. He would appear to me to be libertarian to the core and therefore anti-BIGgovernment. I don't think it would matter if it were Democrats or Republicans or liberals or conservatives in office...as long as the federal government is gaining more power, then libertarian idealism will rebel against it. Freedom from even one's own government is believed to be a right, and obviously freedom from any and/or all religion would go with that. I don't believe Baron is alone in fearing loss of individual liberties and rights while the federal government is gaining more and more power. It did so in the Bush administration and is doing even more centralizing of power since Obama was elected. Nexus stories seemed to always be weary of powerful centralized governments, regimes, tyrants, etc. This should be nothing new, other than maybe you are not accustomed to the venom be sprayed at the perceived liberals or democratic party as opposed to the regular flack taken by Bush and right-wingers. It's not a party or left/right thing, and it's only conservative if we are really using the root of the word and thinking wild west and new world/colonial days..now that is pretty conservative.

[JulianPerez]

I believe you are mislabeling Baron. He's not ultra-conservative. He would appear to me to be libertarian to the core and therefore anti-BIGgovernment. I don't think it would matter if it were Democrats or Republicans or liberals or conservatives in office...as long as the federal government is gaining more power, then libertarian idealism will rebel against it. Freedom from even one's own government is believed to be a right, and obviously freedom from any and/or all religion would go with that. I don't believe Baron is alone in fearing loss of individual liberties and rights while the federal government is gaining more and more power. It did so in the Bush administration and is doing even more centralizing of power since Obama was elected. Nexus stories seemed to always be weary of powerful centralized governments, regimes, tyrants, etc. This should be nothing new, other than maybe you are not accustomed to the venom be sprayed at the perceived liberals or democratic party as opposed to the regular flack taken by Bush and right-wingers. It's not a party or left/right thing, and it's only conservative if we are really using the root of the word and thinking wild west and new world/colonial days..now that is pretty conservative.

In my experience, "Libertarian" is another word for "Republican that wants to disassociate themselves from the mess they made with Iraq and the economy."

It doesn't surprise me the ranks of self-identifying Libertarians have swelled in recent times, considering what a great evasion this form of self-identification is. Now that Republicanism is a dirty word with a lot of unpopularity, those people that take great care to identify themselves as libertarian is nothing more than a case of rats jumping a sinking ship.

This is one instance where self-identification is meaningless. Anybody can SAY they're a libertarian. For instance, Sir Tim identifies that Mike Baron has a problem with Islam, a world religion with at least a billion adherents, including fanatics but also ordinary, boring people that practice their religion without harm to Israel, Europe or the United States. Anti-Islam sentiment is a darling of the current Republican party and extreme right...NOT libertarianism. What's fundamentally libertarian about sweeping distaste for practitioners of a specific religion?

[dan bailey]

Good lord. As someone whose own politics can perhaps be called, for lack of a better adjectiive, anarchosocialist* (government is innately corrupt & ultimately unworkable, but as long it remains a seemingly inevitable evil [much like, say, cancer] it might as well do its utmost to dilute its inherent iniquity by implementing an all-out welfare state to try to ease the plight of the disadvantaged), I can only say that I'm relieved that 99.9-odd percent of anything of Baron's I've bought has been used, with no money going to his pockets.

Unfortunately, that doesn't do much for Steve Rude's well-being. Which means I don't really regret the few dollars I have spent on the current incarnation of Nexus.

*sigh* The problems that arise when politics & art mix ...

Then again, if I buy the first volume of Essential Dr. Strange (as I did several years ago) & a tiny fraction of my expenditure goes to Steve Ditko (who I guess would either refuse any proceeds or sign them over to some sect of like-minded Randian loons), I don't mind at all. As the saying goes, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.


*Why, yes, property is theft ... unless we happen to be talking about my comics. Or books. Or records. Or movies. Or ... Uh, that is, the comics, books, records, movies, etc. that I carefully maintain here in the People's Archives. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.

[JKCarrier]

I don't think I can support Nexus anymore because Mike Baron's politics, as represented in his posts (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mbaron/2009/02/27/68578/) at the conservative site Big Hollywood, are just reprehensible.

Seems to me that the obvious solution is to keep reading Nexus, and stop reading his blog. :wink:

[CBikle]

I like Dennis Miller even though he's fairly right-wing these days.

[Paradox]

I'm with JK. I couldn't care less about what kind of person writes stories I like. Works are separate from their makers to me. For example, I love the early works of John Byrne, and he's a whiney self-important baby. I like a great deal of the writing of Orson Scott Card, and he's a Mormon homophobe. I'm not going to short myself on things I enjoy just because the maker holds a point of view that I find reprehensible. To me, that's just shorting my own sheets and doing jack all to the creator.

[Bicycle-Repairman]

There are a lot of creative people whose personal behaviour or beliefs I disagree with, but I try to separate the art from the artist. However, I can't enjoy an artist's work when it becomes a bigoted rant.

[Paradox]

Oh, that's true. But that's the work itself I don't like, in those cases.

[ForeverTaskmaster]

The way I see it it doesn't matter what your political orientation is, when you write a comic. If you write good stuff it doesn't matter at all.

[T GUy]

What's fundamentally libertarian about sweeping distaste for practitioners of a specific religion? - Julian perez

Being bigoted by including the word 'specific.' Unless you specify all theist religions.

[Perry Holley]

I don't know about 'extremist', but Baron was mocking liberals as far back as the early days of Badger. Granted, he mocked everybody in Badger, but liberalism especially took it on the chin.

[Lone Ranger]

His political views aren't my cup of tea, but I can see some connection to Nexus.

In the Nexus U, I'd say that people are focused on defended personal freedoms which were no easily won. I bet if I went back and re-read it, I'd see a Libertarian angle to everything.

[dan bailey]

I'm with JK. I couldn't care less about what kind of person writes stories I like. Works are separate from their makers to me. For example, I love the early works of John Byrne, and he's a whiney self-important baby. I like a great deal of the writing of Orson Scott Card, and he's a Mormon homophobe. I'm not going to short myself on things I enjoy just because the maker holds a point of view that I find reprehensible. To me, that's just shorting my own sheets and doing jack all to the creator.

Agreed. I start thinking about drawing the line, though, when it comes to giving money to creators whose views I find appalling, even if I happen to think highly of their work. On one level I guess I don't care that Orson Scott Card is a Mormon homophobe, in that I couldn't care less about his sort of sf (which would be the case, of course, even if he were an anarchist in a long-term gay relationship) ... but if I did want to read what he writes, I don't think I'd want any portion of my money going to him, so I'd hunt for it used.

Which, y'know, admittedly I'd do anyway. Because I'm a cheapskate at heart.

Of course, my 2nd favorite writer ever (after Phil Dick), H.P. Lovecraft, was a rather foul racist & a rock-ribbed conservative, though he got better toward the end of his life ... so yeah, I think I've got the "separate the artist from the art" thing down.

[GreatLakesAvengers]

Mike Baron is awesome and can only get better as he gets more conservative.

There's already a ton of liberalism in comics ... why get upset when someone actually puts forth a different point of view?

[Jolly Mon]

Mike Baron is awesome and can only get better as he gets more conservative.

There's already a ton of liberalism in comics ... why get upset when someone actually puts forth a different point of view?

Thinking that a major organized religion is inherently evil (assuming Sir Tim is quoting accurately) isn't conservative, liberal, or libertarian. It isn't a politics-thing, it's more of a hate-thing.

[dan bailey]

What Jolly Mon said. If I insisted on politics that more or less line up with mine, I'd probably be able to pare down my collection to a copy of V for Vendetta, pretty much. (My beloved Sgt. Furys in particular would definitely go out the window, or at least onto eBay ...)

[Reptisaurus!]

I probably have a different perspective on this as a HUGE music nerd...

So he's not serially and repeatedly involved in cases of domestic abuse like Miles Davis? He didn't kill anyone like Phil Spector? He's not.... let's just say he's not Michael Jackson and be done with it. This is only about stuff he wrote?

This makes him less of an asshole than 90% of the artists who's work I buy. And I consider my relationship to be with the ART, anyway... Not the artist.

I know there's always a chance the artist is using the money I give him to buy a cannon to shoot puppies or fly to Bangkock for the early bird Teenage Hooker special - and I've read enough biographies of musicians and visual artists who's stuff I admire that neither of these would surprise me...

But what the person says or does doesn't bother me much - I don't have a relationship with the person. just the art. I'd prefer that they keep from getting killed in a drug-deal gone wrong so they can continue producing art I like, but I don't expect it. I'm not their mother. It's not my job to dictate their behavior. I'm a fan of their work, and don't have any actual investment in the person or their views.

[Vic Vega]

I don't think I can support Nexus anymore because Mike Baron's politics, as represented in his posts (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mbaron/2009/02/27/68578/) at the conservative site Big Hollywood, are just reprehensible. He thinks that Atlas Shrugged is a perfect representation of the current state of American politics, that Islam is inherently evil, and that Obama is just like Zeiffer Meird. (And he doesn't remember his own work very well, either -- he says it was Zeiffer Meird, not Clausius, who created the Heads.)

So what I want to know is, is this a new development, or has Baron always been like this? My feeling is that the politics of the early Nexus stories were much more complex and nuanced than Baron's current political ideas, which are about as unsubtle, extremist, and black-and-white as you can get. When Nexus killed evil people, he always felt extremely ambivalent and guilty about it, and some of the people he killed hardly seemed to deserve it.

Has Baron's thinking changed in recent years? Or have I been misreading Nexus, and was Baron always such an arch-conservative?

I'd guess he was always like that. After all the politics of Nexus are about the same as the politics of Rocky 4(eg: The Sov) . It is just that nobody noticed then.

Ylum is an exception, of course . Ylum starts out as kind of anarchist state with nobody really being "in charge"(the place was Nexus' but Dave actually ran it then). Then it became a Democracy as it added people('tho Tyrone has been President for a while now with no election so it might not be all that democratic).

I'd guess Ylum's recent expulsion of the evonics is his fantasy what he'd like to see happen to muslims in R/L.

Could be wrong 'tho.

[JulianPerez]

One attitude in this thread that I would like to challenge is the idea that works can be enjoyed regardless of the content and moral assumptions built into the work. I think this is a willful decision to turn the brain off that I find I am unable to do.

I am often extremely troubled by fantasy novels that involve the evil dirty subhuman race that we cheer on as our sword-wielding hero hacks into extinction. This is not good clean fun divorced from political content, but rather, the content is implicit and there whether readers choose to acknowledge it or not.

Political content and the implicit values in a work are something that we SHOULD think about and talk about, and not liking a work because you don't agree with its values is a perfectly valid and legitimate judgment that can't just be disregarded.
"I like the work, not the person" is a statement I don't agree with because the two are intertwined.

Norman Spinrad wrote a great sword-n-sorcery parody called the Iron Dream, supposedly a book from an alternate universe where Hitler went into science fiction instead of writing.

Here's the really subversive part: "The Iron Dream" isn't really all that different from most sword and sorcery books! Yet all of it becomes creepy because the guy writing this is Hitler.

There was, supposedly, one fanzine reviewer who would fit perfectly well in a lot of these discussions: he thought it was a ripping-good adventure yarn...but what's all this stuff about Hitler, anyway?

This was in the days before "Godwin's Law," when people felt there was something that could be learned from the history of the second world war.

Likewise, I don't like alien invasion stories, even competently written ones, because they appeal to an instinct in us that is not admirable at all: the fear of the Other, who want to steal our land and get our women.

(Incidentally, it amuses me that Larry Niven, co-author of the rather silly alien invasion novel Footfall became a gigantic tool and reactionary as a person. My favorite was his suggestion to have the FBI spread rumors in Spanish that hospitals steal organs, so illegal immigrants and Mexican-Americans wouldn't use any medical care. Further proof enjoyment of a work and the values espoused by it are interrelated.)

[Chris N]

One attitude in this thread that I would like to challenge is the idea that works can be enjoyed regardless of the content and moral assumptions built into the work. I think this is a willful decision to turn the brain off that I find I am unable to do.

I don't think anybody's suggesting separating the work from the moral assumptions built into it, but rather separating the work from the author's personal life.

Obviously the aspects of his personal life and biases which make their way into the work are fair game.

[Aaron Kashtan]

Ylum is an exception, of course . Ylum starts out as kind of anarchist state with nobody really being "in charge"(the place was Nexus' but Dave actually ran it then). Then it became a Democracy as it added people('tho Tyrone has been President for a while now with no election so it might not be all that democratic).

Yeah, I think Baron's depiction of Ylum politics is a lot more complex than you'd think, given Baron's beliefs on real-world politics. I remember one scene where a giant alien engaged in violent behavior and carried weapons, and Tyrone's police killed the alien. When Nexus suggested that the situation could have been resolved peacefully, Tyrone reminded Nexus that the alien was in violation of Nexus's own laws. I'm not remembering this scene perfectly, but it seems like a clear-cut case where the government had to infringe on the freedom of an individual, which is exactly what Baron seems to hate. And another point that constantly comes up is that Ylum needs a government, because the population has grown too large for anarchism to work anymore.

Of course Nexus does have its fair share of evil governments, but Tyrone always seemed to me like a reasonably honest and responsible politician. He certainly did a better job of running Ylum than Nexus did.


I'd guess Ylum's recent expulsion of the evonics is his fantasy what he'd like to see happen to muslims in R/L.

Could be wrong 'tho.

Reading the first two issues of Nexus: Space Opera, I felt very uncomfortable with the portrayal of the Elvonics, because I suspected they were meant to represent Muslims. Now I guess it's not a suspicion, it's a fact.

Baron's article on Islamofascism seems to have disappeared from the Internet, but here (http://web.archive.org/web/20060815104147/http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/16827.html) is a link to it. In my opinion, Baron's argument here is just reprehensible; it's completely unsubtle and at least verges on bigotry. His problem is not with radical Muslims, but with Islam in general. For someone whose central political belief appears to be that the government should leave him alone, Baron seems remarkably unwilling to leave Islam alone.

Speaking of Baron's views on government, he says in his latest blog post:


Yet today we are saddled with the most overbearing, intrusive government in American history, a gang of socialist ideologues who seek to exercise control over every facet of human existence including our food, the education of our children, and our exercise habits. People may argue where this urge to control the lives of others originates, but there can be no doubt that the present administration does not see individual liberties when they look at the constitution. They see the governments’ rights and the subjects’ obligations.

I have to wonder if he was making the same arguments while George W. Bush was presiding over the greatest expansion of federal power and the greatest assault on individual liberties in American history.

[Aaron Kashtan]

I don't think anybody's suggesting separating the work from the moral assumptions built into it, but rather separating the work from the author's personal life.

Obviously the aspects of his personal life and biases which make their way into the work are fair game.

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. I was curious about the extent to which Baron's politics influenced his work. Which is often a difficult question; the politics of a work are often significantly different from the politics of an author. In comics, the classic example of that is Cerebus.

[Reptisaurus!]

I don't think anybody's suggesting separating the work from the moral assumptions built into it, but rather separating the work from the author's personal life.

Obviously the aspects of his personal life and biases which make their way into the work are fair game.

Oh, absolutely. And that our understanding of the author's personal life is going to be REALLY incomplete in 99% of all cases.

And, honestly, I'm not seeing much of what Baron's talking about in the Big Hollywood posts in Nexus. Or I *wouldn't*, if I wasn't specifically looking for it.

[Paradox]

Sir Tim Drake hasn't read them:

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. I was curious about the extent to which Baron's politics influenced his work.

The proof is in the pudding, I suppose. I never saw anything overtly politically offensive in Mike's work. At least nothing more than would be considered status quo for escapist fiction.

[Chris N]

The main example that always comes to mind for me is Speaker for the Dead, which I think is a great book which seems to have an underlying message of tolerance.

"These insectoid aliens are a hive mind, and these primitive piglike aliens turn into trees, but we should focus on what we have in common and get along."

And it seems like Card himself believes in that message, that these very alien creatures are still human and should be treated as such.

Obviously gay people are an exception though. Sent by the devil, they are.

[Aaron Kashtan]

The proof is in the pudding, I suppose. I never saw anything overtly politically offensive in Mike's work. At least nothing more than would be considered status quo for escapist fiction.

Neither did I, really. At least not until the last couple issues of Nexus. And come to think of it, in God Con he portrayed Muhammad in a reasonably positive light.

And I'm sure you know the quotation is actually "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

[Chris N]

And I'm sure you know the quotation is actually "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

As I've heard "The proof is in the pudding" many times, I'm pretty sure that is also a quotation.

[Aaron Kashtan]

As I've heard "The proof is in the pudding" many times, I'm pretty sure that is also a quotation.

Yes, but it's wrong. :tongue:

[Chris N]

Yes, but it's wrong. :tongue:

I've mixed pudding with liquor before, trying to put enough in to make the pudding at least 20 proof or so.

[Paradox]

Sir Tim Drake chides:

And I'm sure you know the quotation is actually "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

As someone who is constantly irritated by such things, I'm also constantly reminded by others that we have a living language and things change, no matter how much we stomp and scream and order people off our lawns. :tongue:

Not even going to go into what "pudding" meant in the old chat room...

[hondobrode]

Learning more about the personal beliefs of creators does affect how I feel about them, just like it does about politicians, athletes, musicians, movie stars, etc.

It's not so much what their stand is but how they present it and if they're tolerant and respectful of others.

John Byrne's curmudgeon rantings of the last decade or better has colored how I feel about him, though I still enjoy his art.

[mgs]

In his early days, I don't think so. But obviously people grow up and their politics may change, but I think he's been fairly so, from when he started making Nexus.

[Captain Jim]

Good gracious, if had to agree with a person's politics before I could read their comics... well, I sure wouldn't be reading many comics. How strange.

[Vic Vega]

(Incidentally, it amuses me that Larry Niven, co-author of the rather silly alien invasion novel Footfall became a gigantic tool and reactionary as a person. My favorite was his suggestion to have the FBI spread rumors in Spanish that hospitals steal organs, so illegal immigrants and Mexican-Americans wouldn't use any medical care. Further proof enjoyment of a work and the values espoused by it are interrelated.)

...the Hell?!?!?!!

This is the first I've heard this about Niven(admittedly I'm not paying attention anymore).

I wish I was more surprised by this.

[Julusnc]

Nexus is a great comic!

[T GUy]

As I've heard "The proof is in the pudding" many times, I'm pretty sure that is also a quotation.

As 'ball point figure' has always been an expression.

[dan bailey]

As 'ball point figure' has always been an expression.

For "ball park figure"? Thankfully, I've never heard the corrupted version ... as opposed to all sorts of stupidly mangled phrases that I come across all the time but can't think of at the moment.

[Jesse Hamm]

'ball point figure'

First I thought T Guy made this up for laughs, but an internet search proves me far too optimistic. *sigh*

[dan bailey]

Just flashed on perhaps my least favorite (& possibly most commonly seen) example of such -- "one in the same" for "one and the same."

*sigh*

Though possibly my favorite was turned in by a reporter at my old newspaper back in the late '80s. She quoted someone as having referred to "a doggy-dog world."

[JKCarrier]

One I've seen a few times lately is "for all intensive purposes". :confused:

[dan bailey]

Definitely -- that one was on the tip of my mind as well.

[prince hal]

And "would of" for "would've."

[dan bailey]

As well as "alot" for "a lot" (even one of my fellow products of the Arizona State U. editing & publishing procedures program in public history is prone to commit that sin in correspondence) & "nevermind" for "never mind" (popularization of which through his band's 2nd album's title just may be the reason Kurt Cobain is no longer with us).

[Paradox]

I think the ones in the last two posts are a bit more forgivable than the others, though. More like spelling errors. Getting actual words wildly wrong is less so.

It's not "butt naked", it's "buck naked". It's not "majorly", it's "major league".