[The editor attempts
to answer the many questions from readers concerning the position we take on the National Party of Europe as more than an
idea.]
Nearly
sixty years on, many readers of European Action want to know what happened to the concept
of a National Party of Europe and what are we doing about it today. I can first tell them that the idea is kept very
much alive through the pages of this publication and that one of our immediate aims is to spread the word as far and as wide
as is possible with the meagre resources we have at our disposal. For, without the idea and the words that go with it, there
can never be its ultimate realisation.
For this reason, European Action stands as the
flagship of the idea, the only truly effective voice of Europe a Nation in the world today. In the eighteen months of
our existence, the paper has steadily grown in political stature; through perseverance, hard work and resilience we have at
last made a name for ourselves in certain important areas of influence. Before then, there was nothing to inspire. We have
kept faithful to the original concept formulated by Sir Oswald Mosley and others at the Conference of Venice way back in March
of 1962.
Several
nationalist groups across Western Europe (the East was still under communism) got together to agree on a formula that would
establish the existence of a National Party of Europe, this being regarded as an extension of their patriotism in what Mosley
had termed the “higher nationalism” of Europe a Nation. In our supplement to this issue, we publish the aims and
conclusions of that conference ... this being the foundation of the revived concept as propagated by European
Action.
It was said that most of the parties involved at the conference were far too nationalistic, with some of them
enjoying limited later electoral successes as nationalistic groups ... the Italian MSI being an example. The lesson from this
being that the sum total of several nationalistic parties do not make the “higher nationalism” ... just as a
larger number of pygmies will never make a giant. Today, there are some nationalistic parties that will occasionally pay lip
service to the idea of European “co-operation” but will go no further. It is, after all, pure lip service without
any will for going beyond their limited territorial loyalties. Their nationalism will always be fundamentally anti-European
by simple definition of their nationalist titles.
On May 1, 1964, ACTION published an appraisal by Mosley in which he began, “How
stands the National Party of Europe? May 1964 is a good time to make some report on this matter. The first fact is that the
work at Venice stands. It was a very great advance after years of long effort to secure some effective union between European
patriots. Indeed, the success of that conference went beyond my expectations. We had for years encountered so many difficulties
that I did not anticipate such complete accord on our full programme”.
The fact that the Union Movement and Jean Thiriart’s
Belgian party had embarked on an active propaganda campaign immediately after the conference and that the Germans and Italians
had failed in this respect because they were both side-tracked by imminent elections, left the entire undertaking in a state
of quandary.
Mosley
explained that, for the Germans and Italians, the Declaration of Venice was a bigger departure from their previous positions.
They had considered their separate national interests to be more important. Perhaps the vital step of setting up a central
bureau would have helped things along but Mosley argued that this had failed to transpire through lack of funding. In his
words, “But without the central bureau the practical basis of the National Party of Europe can not
be established. Certainly we can not effectively implement the fifth point of central direction until we have the means for
a central bureau”.
The Nationaldemokratischepartei Deutschlands (the
NPD), the successor to the Deutsche Reichspartei, enjoyed limited electoral success in
the mid-1960s but only on a strictly German nationalist platform. Its leader then, Adolf von Thadden, was given maximum international
publicity. This Prussian aristocrat had been an MI6 agent since 1946, it transpired, his anti-Nazi sister having been executed
for treason by the Nazis. With such a family history it was difficult to realistically view von Thadden as a “neo-Nazi”,
a media term then coined to describe the rising virulent German nationalism.
These points are important when evaluating the potential of the Venice
Conference and why it was virtually suspended .
Jean Thiriart, perhaps one of the most visionary of genuine European unionists, turned towards a form of “national
Bolshevism”, albeit within a European context, which involved seeking an accommodation with the Soviet Union. He took
a very anti-American position in this regard. But his contribution in terms of ideas and theory has been phenomenal and remains
an inspiration to many today.
In
1962, Mosley was to be at the receiving end of a concerted campaign of violence by communists and Jewish groups in Britain,
with Union Movement’s last Trafalgar Square meeting being smashed up by organised Red violence, even though he was still
in his flat in Lowndes Square before leaving for the meeting. Previous meetings in the Square had passed off without any trouble
at all. In fact, previously there was a very successful meeting in which Mosley stood up and spoke on behalf of the National
Party of Europe. The violence followed him to other parts of the country and there is no doubt the potential success of the
Conference of Venice, as reported in the press around the world, was the reason for it all. They feared our success.
At a press conference in the Union Movement’s
Vauxhall Bridge Road offices after the attack upon the last Trafalgar Square meeting, Mosley said that he did not blame the
police for what happened. “But I do”, he said, “blame the Government for having lost control of the streets
to Red anarchy”.
There
is no doubt that a campaign for the NPE here in Britain would have got off the ground were it not for this series of orchestrated
violent attacks upon Mosley and Union Movement. With that, the other parties on the Continent would possibly have felt emboldened
to follow suit. As it is, most of them reverted to narrow nationalistic programmes. But, to Mosley, this was not the end.
To him, the Conference of Venice was a success insofar that it was initially established as fact. In his autobiography My
Life he hoped that a future generation would again pick it up and bring about its reality.
Curiously, on another page in the same issue
of ACTION of May 1st 1964, he replies to a correspondent on the question of what happens in the event of the death or disablement
of the Leader. Very rarely was this discussed but he clarified his position thus:
In this event the Movement will be conducted by a
council until a new Leader emerges who will be chosen by that council. There is no mystery about the council which is already
in existence and meets frequently to give me advice and to perform a variety of duties undertaken by its members. This council
is selected on the principles in my article [see “Union Movement as the New Model Party” in
ACTION of March 13th] according to the work men and women do for the Movement. They are most of them well-known
to members of Union Movement. Those among them who will conduct the Movement in the event of my death are all well-known to
members and their names will then be published. In addition at present we have secondary council members who attend for specific
purposes and, on occasion, some whose names can not be published.
The work of the Movement will be carried on with the same round
table method I have advocated and employed in Europe by the people who have served the Movement best until a new Leader emerges
by his proved ability.
A
Directorate of Union Movement was established in the mid-1960s, as, soon after, I became West London Area Organiser when Martin
Moloney was appointed a Directorate member. Jeffrey Hamm remained the Secretary of the Movement with Mosley pursuing his aims,
quite successfully, as a man above party politics. He was to remain the Leader to all of us until his death in 1980.
Now we come to the key point of
this article: whither the National Party of Europe as previously established? It is very clear that any council appointed
by Mosley was not successful in pursuing the ideas of Europe a Nation after his death but reverted to being a kind of memorial
society with annual dinners of remembrance being the year’s highlight. The political Movement had been effectively wound
up ... until European Action decided to remind the world of a great idea.
Where others failed to continue the struggle
for whatever reasons, we have picked up the standard of the Movement. To the Bailey brothers and other members of the Directorate
that have passed on, we salute you. Ever loyal to the Leader, you fought the fight.
Now it is time for the end of reflection and what could have been.
Rather we turn to the beginning of a revitalised vision and what can still be done for our Europe and its people.
The first thing we need to do is to perfect
our propaganda good enough and powerful enough to influence as many of our countrymen as we can. Because, without that, the
idea would whither and die.
I
would claim that this publication has the potential, as it stands, to persuade the best of our people in the direction of
forming a political organisation for all Europeans. This is our main aim.
Secondly, we must learn the lesson of the Conference of Venice of 1962. Quite
simply it is that, collectively, the nationalistic parties of the separate parts of Europe are totally unsuited for the creation
of a pan-European political force. We need those who already possess a European consciousness ... people like Mosley and Thiriart
who had been Europeans from the beginning and were Europeans to the end.
This is not a philosophy or doctrine cobbled together for a quick
win in a local election, based on purely populist opportunism and expediency. It is revolutionary and requires patience and
hard work. There is a group of political parties in the European Parliament collectively called “Alliance
of Europe of the Nations” ... each one is strictly petty-nationalist and virulently opposed to European
unity. Do not be fooled by its title because it is the antithesis of Europe a Nation. We have no allies because it is
we alone that propagate this great European idea and we alone who will see it through.
Our position today is very clear. We must make
this paper a great success by distributing it to as many people we should find to be good Europeans. First, is the idea and
then the word. Keep alive the spirit of Mosley’s vision, my comrades, and one day we shall win.
