[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.
