COMMENT: How UKIP, and Libertarianism, has failed the gay community

Though libertarianism tries to addresses the need to protect the freedoms of two contradiction factions: an established hierarchy (like the church) and individuals, it cannot address an ugly symptom of human nature: that of hatred and discrimination. For the libertarian any kind of hatred and discrimination should not only be allowed but be protected by the government. In essence, the group that has been marginalized by a tyrannical majority would be able to be oppressed with the blessings of the government. This is coming from a former Libertarian Party USA member who was active for almost a decade.

The libertarian principles have been, for the last couple of years, put to the test in my mind as to how a real libertarian world would actually work and manifest itself. To make it short I would say that these principles and philosophies (which are different from policies and laws) cannot actually work in the real world. Just like the fake promises of Communism and Socialism, Libertarianism can only work "if everybody got along and work together in a homogeneous fashion," meaning if the ultra-rich were actually generous, poverty would no doubt be eradicated over night. But that is not reality. In the real world we see the ultra rich trying to avoid paying taxes that are used to support our modern and civilized society. If they are not willing to pay into society to make it better for everyone when the law mandates it god only knows what would happen if there weren't such a law.

I have come to the conclusion that the Libertarian school offers really no real solutions to today's problems, rather it has become more of a cult (which should be a red flag for any sane libertarian, but it isn't) and romanticism of the old wild west in America and a throwback to the Holy Roman Empire where lords reigned over pieces of land in which they were allowed to do whatever they wanted, from polygamy to slavery, they did it all, even at the expense of wider society as this philosophy of letting the over-lords (or "landlords") rule as they might creates what we call serfdom.

I don't believe in serfdom. I believe in the advancement of the human species in science and technology - one day the human race will travel to the stars. Libertarianism is an antithesis to human progress as it tries to hold hostage political will and power and give it to those who are privileged enough to afford it. No matter what government does, it is evil - according to libertarians. Since government is the only place where the common man can obtain power to protect himself from the powers of the rich elite oligarchy, the libertarians want the common people, the labor force, and those who are not members of country clubs to have no power over their destiny.

It is easy to say that libertarian principles are in fact self contradicting. Saying that one can believe in liberty yet take it to the extreme by allowing the oligarchy to run wild, without oversight, to loot and take hold of our society through their powerful wealth and at the same time demand that social services be cut or demolished leading to genocidal austerity against the people which, if we read our history correctly, has lead to the rise of dictatorships in our past, is, to put it mildly, ironic. This is the libertarian paradox.

The rise of UKIP in the United Kingdom should give the British great concern. The United Kingdom Independence Party sells itself as a libertarian party for the British people. But UKIP has acted in a very peculiar, if not totally self destructive, way when it presents itself to the public. What UKIP is selling you is a totally foreign imposition on the people of Great Britain. It is the Frankenstein of Libertarianism, one where the rich oligarchs of the City Of London would most benefit from (and of course are huge backers of the party) taking its lead from right wing reactionism of America and a nice dose of Austrian economics. Its charismatic leader, Nigel Farage, would be too extreme even for the United States libertarians. Here we have somebody who has essentially become the class clown of the European Parliament with his quite embarrassing antics which are in fact the center of gravity for Faragemania, making them more noticeable than whatever Farage had to actually say.

Gay people have been drawn to the Libertarian movement due to its promise of "individual freedom" translating into supporting total freedoms including the right to marry. Without considering the other ill themes of the movement, this promise has been very enticing to gays and lesbians. So when I heard a few years ago that gay people were joining this new libertarian party in England I didn't really pay much attention until I keep hearing reports of homophobic incidents that are growing in intensity within the party. Soon UKIP hired an openly gay chairman in London, and took a picture of a gay UKIPer burning up a picture of the party's political opponent who was also openly gay in Soho. These stunts really came out of left field for this former Libertarian. The Libertarian Party of America, for what I can recall, never bothered with these publicity stunts nor did they bother trying to appoint a token gay to some high position simply to make the party look like its gay friendly. In practice American Libertarians were in deed pro-gay and supported many gay causes (much of it "in spirit" only) that they didn't need token gays to march with the purple British Pound logo on their rainbow flags. The American faction did not have a prominent homophobia problem, which then leads me to suspect the intentions of UKIP and their parading around of these token gays.

It seems to me the party is trying too hard to do what it should already be enshrined in their inner culture. If its a real Libertarian Party it should without a doubt support same-sex marriage and at the same time support churches who want to perform such marriages to do them while exempting those who do not. That is religious freedom. But what we are witnessing here is a complacency with hierarchy, and with regards to the issue of gay marriage, the church hierarchy. This is the first time I've seen a Libertarian party going Full Monty and actually brazenly cozy up to hierarchy and the elite in full public view. This was not supposed to happen until they obtain power. Hence why it is very important for gay people in the UK to make sure this party never reaches Downing Street. Once in power, UKIP will unleash others to impose on vulnerable minorities like the LGBT community. Say bye to health care, equality laws, economic benefits, and yes, even the very prized Civil Partnerships. The party is opposed to gay marriage because it offends and supposedly infringes on the rights of the right wing reactionaries of the Church (both Anglican and Catholic as they are in alliance together). Remember this is the same church that is still against any form of recognition or rights for gay couples, call your union whatever you want - they are opposed to it, period. If Farage and company can fathom a slippery slope of a sneaky European Court forcing churches to perform gay marriages if they are legalized, then one can easily also construct a more plausible and provable situation in which UKIP will have to give the Church what it wants and destroy all the work and rights we have gained all for their perverse version of "religious freedom."

UKIP will also support and protect discriminators. Under the basis of "property rights" anybody can discriminate against anybody, and it is not restricted to obscure B&Bs, or gays for that matter. Since the party believes in privatizing everything, including hospitals and schools, the oligarchs of the Church would be very content on buying up property in order to pursue their fanatic made up right to discriminate against gays, even in hospitals, in order, as one Catholic Cardinal told me once, "to shape you people up." Yes, under UKIP white supremacists can buy up restaurants and hotels in order to keep "those blacks" out, and regain their lost ground of holy white paradise and white only water fountains. The discrimination would be endless and imaginative and of course destructive and poisonous that would no doubt shred society apart.

Is UKIP homophobic? I think so. It is indeed a new breed of libertarianism that is rabidly unmasking itself and showing its ugly face for all to see... That's if you care to see it. They can write whatever they like in their manifesto, but it is actions that speak louder. So far Farage has been harboring known homophobes. For the sake of "liberty," Farage is protecting people who want gays to have no liberty, and continues to support homophobes like Winston McKenzie, even defending his anti-gay views on the day of the recent by-election of Croydon North as Inside Croydon reports: "UKIP leader Nigel Farage today backed what he sees as McKenzie’s Christian stand on gay adoption and expressed concern about the treatment of Catholic adoption agencies opposed to gay adoption."

Note that he expresses concern for the Church and not the already damaged image of the party (or the rights of gays for that matter) - so why should we? Lets just call it for what it is, and say that UKIP harbors and protects homophobes. That is clear as day. And that doesn't make it a party of principles, but a party lacking any cohesion at all. If this is how they operate the party, imaging how they might operate a government office.

McKenzie proudly stated that gays should not be allowed to adopt because it is "unhealthy," and this comes after UKIP tried to sway public sympathy after a UKIP couple who were denied foster kids by the local authorities fearing the couple could discriminate against these immigrant children. If the public actually knew what libertarians in UKIP actually stand for we would all agree that the decision to keep immigrant children away from people who manifest anti-social views and who quite frankly, view government child services as form a of evil, was actually the correct move. Libertarians do not believe in public social services, so what is this couple crying about? It would be the same if a Libertarian would be crying after being denied unemployment benefits or food stamps. It would just be too darn hilarious.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Libertarian movement, and UKIP leading the way now, is by its very nature a dysfunctional nightmare. The last day I was a member of the party, it took the chairman over half an hour to start a steering committee meeting due to some libertarian members who were questioning the authority of the chairman, and then the authority of the committee itself as members running the meeting were being called "authoritarians" for daring to use the gable and call the meeting to order. It has become that dysfunctional.

The next day I changed my party affiliation to independent. And I never looked back since.