Friday, 16 May 2008

EDITORIAL - EA number 16

Oswald Mosley said it years ago - the way out of crisis was to create an economic area large enough to be self-sufficient thereby insulating ourselves from international competition and the international banking system. Today, that policy is needed more than ever.
The global banking system has recently thrown governments into disarray simply because they do not understand anything beyond their free market fundamentalist ideology ... the misbegotten idea that markets will find their own bottom on their own. In this case, the housing markets in both the United States and Britain are further from a bottoming out than any of them think. The ‘credit crunch’ brought about by the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis in the United States is ongoing with the larger banks and financial institutions around the world reportedly losing US$240 billion as of April this year. That is, even with the dispersion of bad credit to third party investors.
The United States, along with Britain and other countries, face slipping into a recession which, according to Professor Nouriel Roubini of New York University, “... will have a systematic banking crisis like we have not had since the 1930s”.
The Wall Street Journal in September 2007 quoted Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, as saying the current turmoil in financial markets “is identical to the problems of 1987 and 1998”.
Citigroup economists recently stated that “the self-feeding downturn now in place shows signs of becoming deeply entrenched” - indicating the very certainty of massive long-term recession around the world.
An obsession with massive consumer spending is a fundamental cause of the crisis as the freely available loans from lending institutions extended to many who could not or would not repay them. The massive losses to these institutions prevented many from further lending. The result is a downward spiral and hyperinflation.
The world housing bubble could be seen by anyone with long term vision to be heading for disaster. The obsession with home-ownership became endemic globally. This fuelled house price increases along with massive consumer spending. The idea was to spend ourselves out of recession, hence the massive imports of cheap Chinese goods, but it was on such high risk credit that eventually it all became unsustainable.
The answer is the one Mosley gave all those years ago. Free yourselves from the international banking system by building Europe a Nation, a fortress Europe that can supply everything the Europeans need with a European banking system that serves the European people alone. Then, what goes on in America would have no effect upon us whatsoever.
In his page on the BNP’s website, John Bean had this to say on ‘The Global Slump the BNP Predicted’ of February 16, “Although we can not isolate ourselves completely from the erratic behaviour of the world’s money markets, the way of modifying its effects that we gave then has not changed”. In the same article he openly adopts Conservative Party economic policy, an obvious indication that the BNP does not have one of its own, apart from a rigid autarky for these isles.
Mr Bean seems to have learned nothing from his short stay in Mosley’s Union Movement. Substitute the word isolate for insulate and it is no longer a matter of ’can not’ but one of necessity. Modifications to a system that is out-dated and out of control will never work and Little Englander economics always meant being thrown to the wolves of high finance.
Housing in Britain needs to be geared towards more rented social housing in order to house the homeless and those on lower incomes. Instead, Gordon Brown robs the poor in order to give money to his banking chums. This from the party of Keir Hardie that once claimed to be for the workers. What a disgrace.
Mosley was always for the working man ever since his days in the Labour Party when he offered constructive proposals for curing mass unemployment. Ramsay MacDonald’s government rejected them for being ‘too socialistic’ while the old Labour relics stuck to their blind faith in free market capitalism.
Nothing has changed and nothing will change while you have this acceptance of a global dimension to economics and the way we all trade with each other.
We say no to a global economy because it makes a mockery of sovereignty and the people’s will. We want our own economy within Europe, of Europe and for the Europeans. That is our revolutionary purpose. RHE

Saturday, 12 April 2008


Published in European Action number 15


We are often mistaken for ‘fellow-travellers’ of the narrow nationalistic far-right and lumped together with the entire reactionary groupings that call themselves ‘British patriots’. When I say this is mistaken, I mean it to be completely misguided and based on an ignorance of our unique ideological viewpoint.
We are NOT nationalists in the sense that we cling to an older form of territorial identity. We have gone beyond the old nation-states. That is the reality. Yet the ‘reactionary’ myth is perpetuated by both Left and Right. Permit me to explain by unravelling the twisted distortions that most ‘anti-fascists’ are so fond of using by way of explaining us away.
Parties like the British National Party trade on sentiments that belong to another age, a perceived Golden Age of imperial might and industrial strength. John Tyndall used to rant on about it in his perorations. It is unreconstructed ‘empire loyalism’, a loyalism to something that no longer exists. How absurd, you might think. The BNP’s political roots are from the immediate post-war League of Empire Loyalists (among other small groups) that clung to the idea of British dominion over a quarter of the globe. They wanted to restore that pre-eminence but were not quite sure how to go about it. All they had was nostalgia for the past and a few smoke bombs.
Another force in British politics had emerged with an idea that dealt with the problem of Britain’s changes of fortune, largely as a result of the Second World War. Sir Oswald Mosley alone had the vision and he made it the core thinking of his new Movement. It was at this point he broke from the past and offered solutions for present and future. The main point here is, he rejected the narrower nationalism of pre-war fascism while the reactionaries of today, in the form of the BNP, actually try to revive it. The BNP and its satellite factions adhere to policies that are essentially those of the pre-war British Union of Fascists with one important element missing ... the great resources of the British Empire that once inspired the BUF’s economic theory of an Empire Insulation Policy.
So you see, the BUF was not really nationalist - it was imperialist. The reason for this was simple. Mosley wanted to harness all the resources of Empire in order to create an insulated economy that could be planned and also be free of the international trading system that undermined the living standards of the British worker.
Ask the BNP what its economic policy is and they will tell you that they want to go it alone, to be independent and to choose with whom they wish to trade. Sounds like a noble cause and all that ... but it is totally impracticable for several reasons. As a small set of islands we need to import more food than we can produce and we could never compete successfully in a world where the cheapest goods are favoured over those created by higher wages. Look today at the flood of Chinese goods from low wage industries, favoured because it encourages consumer spending at home in order to avoid an economic recession. It is an impossible situation.
On the front page of the BNP’s Voice of Freedom was the daft idea that Britain could become self-sufficient in food if every family had an allotment. The frightening thing is that some of these people really believe this to be a genuine solution and that every citizen should spend part of his day admiring his marrow in the cause of British sovereignty. They are leading you up the garden path and it is not to their cabbage patch heaven.
We say very clearly, Britain can not go it alone. It is a pipe dream perpetuated by right-wing reactionaries who believe that a rigid nationalism based on autarky can put the ‘Great’ back into Britain. We say, create the new empire, the empire of Europe a Nation, that federation of European states that could be the strongest power in the world. We could pool all our resources and keep a healthy population on the land with no trouble at all.
The right-wing reactionaries react with horror and say, “No to Europe. We don’t want to be swallowed up by a super-state”.
Why not? They do not seem to mind being swallowed up by the international banking system and by all the other international institutions now going under the new catch-word of globalisation. That is the real enslavement ... not Europe. The right-wing reactionaries could never grasp the simple facts of economics never mind that the kinship they always went on about has a European dimension.
By rejecting Europe they embrace the very internationalism they once professed to oppose - because the only alternative to a National Europe is to suffer the vagaries of the international trading system with all its uncertainties and perils - yes, “going it alone”.
Take note of the term ’National Europe’ and not the ‘global Europe’ recently championed by Gordon Brown, the bankers’ Prime Minister.
The right-wing reactionaries also found a new object for their seething hatred in the form of a religion ... to replace a racism that was outlawed under threat of imprisonment. In place of constructive policies, we are presented with a ‘clash of civilisations’ in direct mimicry of Zionist supremacism and the war plans of American neo-cons. The ‘wicked Muslim’ came of age.
Funny how they did not mention this years ago before the collapse of what Ronald Reagan described as the ‘Evil Empire’. At the end of the Cold War a new external threat needed inventing and Islam fitted the bill, being antagonistic towards Israel over the Palestinian issue and seemingly making greater inroads at the expense of liberal, secular Christianity.
The real issue here is immigration and the identity not only of Britain but of the whole of Europe. It is not a new religious war and it should not be an opportunity for gaining cheap votes as Nick Griffin so cynically uses it. Islam may be alien to many of these right-wing reactionaries but so too is Christianity which many so secretly despise. Their championing of Christianity is wholly disingenuous, serving only to cover up their real agenda, which is to exploit racial resentment. For Muslim, read brown person. That is more like the truth, is it not? Tell the truth - you want to keep Britain white and not to keep it Christian. Enough of this deception.
The right-wing reactionaries now side with the Zionists, doing their bidding in order to curry favour. John Bean, editor of the BNP’s Identity magazine, is overbearingly superior when he rails against “obsessive old school anti-Semites who believe that my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Many people might even stomach such cant and humbug if John Bean had not had close political allies such as Colin Jordan and John Tyndall, no strangers to the Jewish conspiracy theories of the 1950s and thereafter.
According to George Thayer in The British Political Fringe, Bean joined Mosley’s Union Movement in the 1950s and he “joined and quit all within two weeks, perhaps a record” (page 48). He was later expelled from the League of Empire Loyalists. Bean’s original British National Party, a merger of his National Labour Party with Jordan’s White Defence League, believed that all Jews should be shipped to Madagascar. According to Thayer, “The policies of this new party combined all the old ideas of Arnold Leese with those of Jordan and Bean”.
So please, Mr Bean, spare us the ‘elder statesman’ pontificating. We are all prisoners of our political past and you are no exception.
If the present-day British National Party could claim a direct political connection with that old BNP of yore by dint of Mr Bean’s position as editor of Identity, then it has a lot of anti-Semitic baggage to contend with. Try brushing that under the carpet.
The position of Union Movement, and now European Action, on the issue of race and culture does not follow the right-wing reactionary road. First of all, we never blamed the immigrants nor did we ever suggest they should be persecuted. We most certainly do not condone picking on them for their religious beliefs. According to Mosley, we have all been the victims of Government policies which are directly influenced by the need of international capitalism to acquire ever more sources of cheap labour. That is what makes profits and little else. Non-white immigrants were victims of this large-scale exploitation, at the expense of the indigenous people. Remember Enoch Powell (Mr Bean’s idol) who imported coloured nurses when serving as a Tory Health Minister in order to circumvent giving our own nurses a well deserved pay rise?
It is desirable to preserve cultural identities for all peoples and the racial component has an essential part to play. But it should never entail notions of superiority and inferiority ... what is called ‘supremacism’. We see this supremacism at play in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and it is not a pleasant experience.
Those right-wing reactionaries who entertain supremacist notions (you find them hissing and spitting on the Stormfront internet forum) are surely the worst type of racist ignoramus ... an embarrassment, even. No humanity, no humility and not a kind thought for anyone. One good thing the Race Relations Act did encourage, and I am not condoning locking people up for an opinion, is that those of us who can think were corralled into using gentler language in relation to other races. The lesson being - if you do not want to go to prison then curb your language and treat all people in a fair way. Consequently, the policies of successive governments are the only legitimate targets on the race issue. Quite right, too.
Do not confuse us with the Nordicists, the skull measurers, racial superiority theorists or those who dream of ethnic cleansing. They do not represent the purpose of our politics. Our purpose is to create a better world for all mankind without the necessity of bombing the hell out of people or walking all over their land.
That is why Mosley favoured the principle of federal union for all mankind, to organise yourselves so that you are truly self-sufficient and free of the international trading system that favours low-wage economies over those trying to raise the standard of life for their people. Only large areas can succeed, as such. In each federal union there must be common government because government must always lead the economy ... not the money markets or the ‘free market forces’ of international trade.
As distinct from the right-wing reactionaries, we propose a system of social justice based on the principles of European Socialism.
Mosley coined that phrase in the 1950s but it will serve us well into the 21st Century. It proposes that a partnership of workers’ ownership and free enterprise will be the foundation of all industrial relations in Europe a Nation. But more than this, it is a rejection of the old ways of ‘them and us’, bringing together the only vital elements - the workers and the pioneers of enterprise. All the rest were parasitic and exploitative. This then was the vision for a revolution ... not just a third force in the world but also a third system, as Mosley used to say.
So let us be very clear about this. We have nothing in common with the ‘British nationalists’ who say no to Europe, meaning both the present set-up of the European Union and the alternative National Europe we are proposing. British nationalism is out of date, out of step and out of tune. In other words, the right-wing reactionary nationalists have no future. That is why they are always squabbling.
The future belongs to those who can see through the misbegotten nostalgia for past glories that are locked into a mindset refusing to move on. Mosley’s ideas are the ideas of tomorrow which time is coming. They serve many purposes in that respect - the only way out of the stranglehold of the international financial system, the creation of a powerful state that need fear nothing and as a role model for the other great areas of the globe ... the Muslim world, Central Asia, the Far East and South America. All of them have the potential for federal union in common purpose and common leadership. Then you have an end to one great superpower pushing its weight around the world and, at last, the great cultures and races existing together, each with its own self-sufficient system because each is large enough to do so. We can enter a trade agreement any time with any other economic bloc for anything extra we need ... but not as hostile competitors as we have in the world today.

Friday, 7 March 2008


Published in European Action No 15, March/April 2008

There were no accolades for Ian Smith the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia who died in 2007. There was no gathering of world leaders to bid farewell to this great statesman, or any attempt to praise his sincerity. Ian Smith was branded a ‘racist dictator’ and was then betrayed by dictators within the British Commonwealth of Nations – the institution that he had so admired and for whom he had fought as a Spitfire pilot during the Second World War.
His post-war fight for civilised democracy and European culture was opposed by Harold Wilson, a British PM suspected of links with the KGB, an organisation within the USSR whose Red doctrines dictated that African ‘colonialists’ had to be attacked on all fronts. South Africa and Rhodesia were seen as enemies by the USSR, mainly because most of the new gold flowing into Zurich was either from South Africa or from the USSR. The Kremlin fought only for the interests of the USSR and it is a sad delusion that it was concerned for the welfare of the indigenous African population. The truth is that gold was the only thing that counted.
The denigration of Ian Smith by the British press often exploited his cold-looking austere facial expression which in fact was due to horrendous injuries sustained during the war when his Spitfire crashed on takeoff. These injuries included loss of one eye, speech impediment and partial paralysis of the face. These dreadful war wounds were never mentioned in the press, nor was the fact that he had volunteered for the RAF aircrew service immediately war was declared, nor that he had continued combat flying after his appalling injuries. Of course, these truths, if commonly known, would have accorded Smith the respectability and admiration he so richly deserved, a possibility that Comrade Wilson and his Red chums would have abhorred. Also never mentioned was the fact that he was involved in a later air crash when his Spitfire was brought down by enemy fire in Italy, or that he joined the local partisans to continue the fight.
When Ian Smith entered politics at the end of the war, he set off on a journey that would take him to premiership and to ultimate betrayal by the Commonwealth that he had so deeply loved and admired. There can be no doubt that the communist sympathisers that ruled Britain in the 1960s deliberately stuck a knife into the backs of their Rhodesian kith and kin. Who knows, perhaps those who have the right to live in all countries also wanted Smith out – because of their extreme interest in gold. Once again, the tired old men in Westminster, many of whom had never even set foot in Africa, dictated to those who had devoted their lives to European civilisation and advancement of the African nations and all their peoples. It had been perfectly acceptable to send innumerable ‘black’ African troops to certain death during the war but an entirely different matter to rule them with justice, law and order. The British Government favoured ANC thugs: Smith was a gentleman. Faced with total intransigence from London, the Rhodesian government was forced to declare independence (as the American colonialists had been forced to centuries earlier). Instead of recognising this action as defence of European civilisation, justice and advancement, Wilson and his fellow-traveller cronies forced sanctions on Rhodesia without a care about the bankruptcies or other hardships they might cause. Henry Kissinger fully realised that the American demands he must deliver to the War Hero politician
were tantamount to placing a pistol into Smith’s hands and demanding that he commit suicide. Shame on Kissinger, because he comes from a country that also declared unilateral independence, having rebelled against and then left the British Empire because of English tax greed.
When Ian Smith was finally forced to step down, many intelligent, thinking people had already realised what was in store. Farmers would be brutally butchered, land and property owners disowned while the Rhodesian economy would be pushed into free fall. The inevitable shortages arose while the local populations rejoiced in not having to work for a boss anymore. But, the following year brought desperate food shortages combined with lack of the foreign currencies that production of natural resources and Rhodesian tobacco farmers had previously earned.
Brutal dictatorship was just around the corner: Ian Smith had presided over a country where law and order had ruled and where nobody was above the law, where everybody had sufficient to eat and where medical attention was available to all.
Now that the enemies of freedom have completed their goals people could be put to death by placing tyres filled with petrol around their necks and burning them to death, whole townships can be removed from the face of the earth if the inhabitants do not vote for the ignoramus who now heads the country. At the same time, inflation gallops away in unbelievable multiples and many once-healthy businesses fall into ruin. The children who could formerly expect at least a basic education must now count themselves lucky to be alive and not molested. Bravo, the British Government, for sending Rhodesia back to the dark ages.
There is nothing new about the phenomena: it is happening in Kenya today: a delicate blend of political corruption combined with death tolls from riots set the all too familiar scene. Uganda, freed from the European, rapidly fell into the dark ages with mass murder served up as entertainment for an insane leader, while the county’s agriculture and industry were ruined. Tribal hatreds will never go away.
When Ian Smith passed away, there were no grand obituaries or national grief. This old war hero must be forgotten, if only to cover up the disastrous mistakes of the tired old men who made the fatal decisions. There may be a grudging admission that perhaps he had been right about one or two things. But, nobody will ever admit that Rhodesia would now be a rich, stable and powerful Nation if Smith had not been removed.
The uninformed, perverted doctrines of the Whitehall moralists had to be preserved. The resulting mayhem will never be acknowledged. Never would they admit that Ian Smith maintained his Rhodesian farm without let or hindrance, because the locals had deep respect if not affection for him even after UDI. No, his farm was not attacked once, and yes, unbelievably, the locals loved and respected this great man who had ensured one of the highest living standards in Africa for the indigenous peoples. They had been, in Smiths words, the happiest black faces in Africa, until he was deposed!
Smith once remarked that if he and Mugabe walked into a township only he would emerge alive. Smith knew the African peoples. Conversely, the African peoples know the Mugabes of their world.

Thursday, 28 February 2008


Published in issue no 13 of European Action

Reviewed by Colin Wilson in the Hampstead and Highgate Express, January 20th 1989

(This was Jeffrey Hamm’s second book, following on from his autobiography, Action Replay. Hamm was a founding member of Mosley’s Union Movement and Oswald Mosley’s private secretary up until the Leader’s death in 1980. The Evil Good Men Do was published in 1988, nearly 20 years ago.)

In the late 1950s I was a famous Nazi - at least according to some of the leftists of that period, such as Kenneth Tynan, Bernard Levin and Philip Toynbee. What they meant was that I had spoken out in support of Sir Oswald Mosley, particularly his idea of a European Common Market. I could deny the ‘fascist’ allegation until I was black in the face; since they commanded more newspaper space than I did, a great many people believed them.
Now, eight years after Mosley’s death, it is becoming possible to discuss him without being accused of wanting to re-open Buchenwald. And anyone who is willing to take the trouble can find out that he was one of the most far-sighted politicians of the 20th century. As a simple and painless way of doing this, I can thoroughly recommend Jeffrey Hamm’s The Evil Good Men Do.
I am not too keen on the title; it sounds like one of those all-purpose soporifics from Shakespeare. In fact, a better title would have been Blunders. For that is precisely what it is about; the appalling blunders made by well-meaning politicians between the First World War and the present day - blunders in immigration policy, in housing, in education, the use of North Sea oil. And a dozen other delicate subjects including Northern Ireland. Hamm writes calmly, almost primly, yet a great deal of what he is saying is dynamite.
Hamm is a Welshman who, like many decent and intelligent people, joined Mosley’s Movement in the 1930s because he saw that Mosley provided a real alternative to the bumbling and incompetence of politicians such as Ramsay MacDonald and Neville Chamberlain - the incompetence that led us into the Second World War.
Although he was school-teaching in the Falklands in 1940, he was arrested and interned. On his release he joined the army and fought Hitler. But he is still understandably bitter about the stupidities that labelled him a kind of Nazi, and about the mud that continued to stick even after the war, when Mosley’s most important idea was a European Common Market. Hamm’s autobiography, Action Replay, was a sincere, intelligent and exciting book, and I recommend it to everyone who would like to hear the other side of the story.
Having said which, I have to admit that the second chapter of his new book will give most people apoplexy. It is entitled The Disastrous War and it argues that Britain made a tremendous mistake in going to war with Hitler. It asks the question: Did Hitler regard England as an enemy? - and answers No. Which is undoubtedly true. Hitler had an almost sentimental regard for the British.
It then goes on to point out that Hitler’s designs lay all to the East, in Russia and suggests that it would have been no bad thing if he had smashed Stalinism, and we had sat back and let him do it.
If you can accept this, then you will certainly read the rest of Hamm’s book with admiration. But even if you can’t, it should be no obstacle to admiring Hamm’s acute political intelligence as he retells the political history of our time and points out that British post-war governments have been just as incompetent as those of the ’30s.
You may well gasp with astonishment and outrage at a comment such as: “The war had inadvertently enabled Labour to achieve one of its pre-war objectives: the destruction of the British Empire”. But anyone who thinks this is rightist rhetoric should then read the next page in which Hamm totally justifies his opinion by quoting Attlee, Stafford Cripps and Hugh Gaitskell.
During the last 20 years of his life, Mosley knew he had lost the battle; that even if he grew wings and a halo, he would never succeed in persuading people that he was not a Nazi thug and that his political ideas were intelligent and reasonable.
As I read Hamm’s scathing and witty book, I was saddened by the thought that he is basically in the same position. Yet even if he can only reach a hundred readers who understand the importance of what he has to say, he will have justified the courageous optimism that made him write it.
Colin Wilson

Sunday, 10 February 2008


By Dermont Clark

Firstly, let me pay tribute to Sir Oswald Mosley who coined the phrase Europe a Nation, because nearly six decades after the formation of Union Movement back in 1948, and more than 26 years after his death in 1980, we who subscribe to or write articles for European Action are still inspired by his philosophy. Walter Lippman (the American journalist, author and Pulitzer Prize winning columnist) said, “The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and the will to carry on”.
Interesting too, that in reviewing the early successes of British Union, Mosley addressing his brother Blackshirts called on them to possess the character of the true revolutionary. They were fighting for nothing less than a revolution in the spirit of the British people and they needed to have within them the character and power to endure, to have loyalty, constancy, manhood and stability of nature.
A previous issue of this publication (number 8, March/April 2007) dealt in much detail with the Conference of Venice in 1962 and the acceptance by those who attended of the need for a National Party of Europe, and how some of the other European parties that had subscribed fully to proposals failed to act and ultimately reverted to their cozy nationalist agenda.
In fact, Mosley had gone further still and called upon members of Union Movement to be European Socialists (he had always denied being of the ‘right’ politically, stating that he was from the ‘left’). In essence then, we have been called revolutionaries and socialists but how does this tie in with our National Party of Europe and the demand to bring about Europe a Nation?
In May 1956, Mosley’s essay ‘European Socialism’ was printed in the German monthly Nation Europa. In that article, European Socialism was defined as “the development by a fully united Europe of all the resources in our continent for the benefit of all the peoples of Europe, with every energy and incentive that the active leadership of European government can give to private enterprise, workers’ ownership or any other method of progress which science and a dynamic system of government find most effective for the enrichment of all our people and the lifting of European civilization to ever higher forms of life”.
Note that both private enterprise and workers’ ownership (syndicalism) are equally acceptable under this plan, Indeed, Mosley’s concept was of private enterprise leading to syndicalism as a natural transition from one to the other. When a private business became too big for individual management or when private enterprise is exhausted, workers’ ownership would be introduced. Today we are used to the idea of a ‘management buy out’ but syndicalism goes much further, vesting the ownership of the business among ALL of the workers in the same way as the John Lewis and Waitrose stores are owned by a partnership of all the staff.
Mosley went on to say that “the state should define the broad boundaries within which industry might operate and should itself only intervene in the event of breakdown. The state should direct not by control but by leadership, not by bureaucracy but by the wage-price mechanism”. In other words, for example, the state says to producers, wholesalers and retailers of foodstuffs that you must only sell people food that is safe to eat and then let them get on with their task. You do not have to define the size and shape of a cucumber and then hire a team of bureaucrats to go around shops and supermarkets to ensure that the cucumbers are not too large or too small or have too big a bend.
On taxation, Mosley said, “The leadership of the state will be exercised by the planned and regulated raising of wages over the whole field of industry as science increases the power to produce”. He then went on to say that wages should reflect a reward for the skill, effort and responsibility taken by the employee.
Mosley saw his concept of European Socialism not as commandments set in stone but as a fluid, changing and developing plan that met the needs of the times. He said, “We live in an age of unprecedented opportunity because science has broken so many bonds and has so greatly enlarged the horizons of men. If men in an age of new facts are prepared to find new policies to meet them, they are natural companions, provided of course that we hold together that all-important spiritual kinship. We must think again, then act most strenuously, and on a greater scale than ever because we have greater possibilities, First comes the idea and the union of the spirit. All else follows!”.


By Robert Edwards

"Anyone who knows how difficult it is to keep a secret among three men - particularly if they are married - knows how absurd is the idea of a worldwide secret conspiracy consciously controlling all mankind by its financial power; in real, clear analysis". Oswald Mosley

Conspiracy theories are sometimes the product of a far too vivid imagination. It has been said that the poet and the paranoiac find connection where the logical mind finds none. But when the truth is thrust under one’s nose, the palpable stench of duplicity and corruption turns theory into reality very quickly. This is the case with that shadowy cabal known as the Bilderberg Group. You can talk of UFOs or even fairies at the bottom of the garden in justifiably sceptical terms ... but, believe me, the Bilderberg Group is very real.The Bilderberg Group’s first meeting took place at the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland, at the end of May 1954. Meeting annually, the group consists of bankers, industrialists and politicians, mainly from Europe and America. Included are representatives of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund ... as well as military leaders. Their debates are held in secret and are not reported in the world’s press. According to Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands who attended that first meeting, “The hotel was ringed by security guards, so that not a single journalist got within a mile of the place. The participants were pledged not to repeat publicly what was said in the discussions”. This is in total variance to the nature of the recent gathering of the G8 leaders in Edinburgh, where even public protests were accepted as legitimate activity. And the deliberations of the G8 leaders were reported openly and freely on a daily basis.The Bilderberg Group, on the other hand, is a supra-national “government” manipulating the global economy and establishing monetary rates around the world. It even selects the political leaders who it deems fit to rule and targets those that it wishes to be removed. Again, Prince Bernhard clarified the modus operandi of the group with, “It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supra-national body”. So why the secrecy when G8 meetings are voluntarily placed under the public spotlight to the point that they become a mere diversion from the Bilderberg heavy mob?This year, in May, the Bilderbergers met behind the fortified and heavily protected walls of the Dorint Sofitel Seehotel Überfahrt in Rottach-Egern, Munich in Bavaria. These venues vary from year to year.There was a blanket ban on reporting the event. This was made easy to apply through the presence of many newspaper proprietors and their editors from around the world, Bilderbergers to a man. These are the men who decide what you read and what you do not read. From the list of participants we have the editor of Le Figaro, the publisher of the Austrian Der Standard, the boss of Axel Springer AG, the chairman of the Washington Post Company, the deputy editor of Die Zeit, Norman Pearlstine of Time Inc, the editor of Newsweek International, the United States editor of The Economist, the senior correspondent of the International Herald Tribune and Martin Wolf of the Financial Times. Previously, Bilderberg Group meetings have been graced by the presence of Gerald Levin of Time Warner Inc and Norman Spector of the Jerusalem PostThe May meeting in Rottach-Egern was too uncomfortably close to the G8 meeting in June but its significance is far greater than the G8 agenda of tackling poverty in Africa. It is greater insofar that matters to do with imposing a worldwide UN taxation on all people living on this planet were discussed once again. Five years ago, this controversial proposition was on the agenda then but was proven to present a problem when coming to universal acceptance. Nevertheless, here it is again, and if enacted would set a dangerous precedent because the United Nations is a non-government agency (NGA) and part of the new Global Ethic. For the first time it would circumvent national governments on imposing taxation and make a mockery of ideas concerning national sovereignty or independence, which hardly exist even without such an imposition.The world’s moneybags were there ... all the names that evoke all that is implied by the term “high finance”. Goldman Sachs International has a permanent seat at these gatherings, along with the vice-chairman of Rothschild Europe, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Global Investment Holdings, Henry Kissinger (the elder statesman of the Bilderbergers) chairman of Kissinger Associates Inc, the chairman of Nokia Corporation, David Rockefeller of JP Morgan International Council and Judith Rodin of the Rockefeller Foundation. From around the world we had the chairman of ThyssenKrupp AG, the president of Siemens AG, the governor of the European Central Bank ... and to top it all with the cherry on the icing, former president of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, alongside the present incumbent, the former war-monger, Paul Wolfowitz. You could say the proverbial wolves got through the door as opposed to being kept away.A political group within the meeting is particularly influential, best described as the neo-conservatives who had been the driving force behind recent illegal wars. This sub-group includes, of course, the current president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz. All the forces of globalism, the new economics of world domination, were out in force in Rottach-Egern for one purpose ... to decide on how the nations of the world will conform to a one-world culture based on guidelines dictated by Washington and Wall Street, New York. Any deviation from these edicts will not be tolerated and the necessary pressure applied, including the threat of war.Most of all, the very existence of this elitist club of very powerful men really does shatter the myth of national sovereignty that certain groups of narrow nationalists believe can exist if, for example, we simply withdraw from the European Union. UKIP and other Euro-sceptics fully embrace the concept of the global free market with scant idea of the predatory nature of those who manipulate the markets and can create pools of mass unemployment at the nod of a head. Their idea of sovereignty simply throws Britain to the wolves of what used to be referred to as international finance but has since evolved into a sinister form of American financial imperialism claiming the entire world as its personal fiefdom. Oswald Mosley warned of the predatory nature of world international competition throughout his political life. He said that countries needed to protect themselves by creating self-sufficient units otherwise unemployment was inevitable as financiers engaged one country against another, each attempting an advantage over the others. Those that did better than others in this system were the ones that kept wages down in order to compete successfully and make a profit. This global system could simply shift industries around the world to where the cheapest labour can be found. It recognises neither national frontiers nor any concept of sovereignty. The entire world belongs to money ... as in the song, “money makes the world go around”. Or should we say, money makes the world dance to its tune?The Bilderbergers represent all that is powerful and influential in the capitalist West, brought together on a regular basis in order to exercise their clout regardless of elected governments and regardless of Twentieth Century notions of national self-determination. Forget Brussels and those irritating bureaucrats who draw up rules on fishing quotas or the vital statistics of a banana. They can be sorted out through reform of the European Parliament. Look beyond all that and truly worry about the issues that affect the entire globe. There you will find the reality of world power, self-serving and without any restraints whatsoever. To those who think that the call for withdrawal from the European Union would preserve some ill-conceived sovereignty that Britain and other nations in the world feel is threatened solely by the EU ... then look at who manipulates the money markets, who lays down the conditions for borrowing from the World Bank and who meets annually to decide the future of the globe.

Saturday, 19 January 2008


By Robert Edwards

(published in European Action number 11, July/August 2007)

In the previous issue of European Action, Bill Baillie asked what is the point of minority far-right parties entering the arena of both the local and national elections when the mainstream parties seem to have it all sown up in their favour and for themselves alone. The best they can do, he said, was to influence government policy now and then.
The results of the last local elections in May were devastating for the British National Party after putting up a record number of over 800 candidates. Most of them were paper candidates, of course, with at least one in the South East of a very dubious moral background.
The BNP, under Nick Griffin, has struggled for the past several years in order to re-invent itself, bending over backwards to follow similar groups on the continent that have adopted a stridently pro-Israel line. They think that being anti-Muslim and pro-Jewish will open the doors to mainstream politics, when recent election results have proven that this is not the case. Some people, you see, have long memories, especially Jewish people.

"The popularism [sic] in British nationalist circles means the idea that if we change our image the Jews will not say bad things about us … The BNP should not try and appeal to middle-class notions of respectability, which take issue with the fact that a minority of nationalists wear large boots and short haircuts, or that the BNP activities often 'provoke violence'. It is more important to control the streets of a city than its council chamber". Nick Griffin, The Cook Report, 1997

Quite often, this transformation took the form of attacking nationalistic critics of Israel by labelling them anti-Semites with the implication that they are largely influenced by the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The BNP’s leader, Nick Griffin, was the author of a booklet entitled ‘The Mindbenders’, an exposé of alleged disproportionate Jewish influence in the British media. This was published within recent memory with the BNP now attempting to erase aspects of its history by saying Griffin had nothing to do with it.
Unfortunately for him, we have the following quote in stark contradiction to the latest ‘in denial’ struggle of conscience. In issue number 3, on page 11, of The Patriot 1999, he declares, "I have been busy writing The Mindbenders". Indelible, unambiguous and unequivocal!
What makes people like Griffin believe that political somersaults and twisted contortions will benefit them in the long run when inconsistency and downright opportunism does not go unnoticed and will surely follow them for the rest of their lives?
John Tyndall could never shake off his penchant for Nazi uniforms in the early 1960s, paraded for the whole world on the front page of the Daily Mirror. It was a propaganda gift to his enemies on the extreme-left and to his own internal rivals. They used it against him time and again.
After years of servility to JT, Griffin decided to challenge him on the issue of modernising the party and ridding it of the old guard anti-Semites, even though he was one himself, referring to the ‘Holohoax’ in his Rune magazine. Tyndall was given the ‘let’s get rid of the Nazis’ treatment that became more acrimonious as time went by. Griffin, as we all know, won the contest.
The Griffin gang also discovered a substitute for the old anti-Semitism in the form of a wildly exaggerated anti-Islamism, with the foul-mouthed Lee Barnes appointing himself the BNP’s Witch-Finder General. On April 9, 2006, Barnes informed me, “Islam is a direct threat to our safety. Jewish power is a mere political threat. When faced with two tigers trying to destroy you but you have only one bullet in your rifle what do you do?”
The cynical opportunism is plain to see but the logic is flawed. Having shot one tiger, what do you do about the other? Go on your knees and beg?
Just before last May’s elections, it was not surprising that Jewish leaders were to warn British Jews to unite against the BNP. One Jewish website declared, “The Board of Deputies of British Jews is calling on all communities to unite in making sure voters across the country reject the far right British National Party in May's local elections”.
It appeared that all the crawling and toadying to Jewish feelings and aspirations had been for nothing.

“The Messianic nature of Judaism has always been an important factor, at least subconsciously, in the hugely disproportionate role of racial Jews in both Communism and Capitalism”. Nick Griffin, Spearhead, February 1996

European Action has no problem in confronting the crimes of Israel and giving its support to the persecuted Palestinian people. We know that we are condemning people for what they do and not for what they were born. Anti-Semitism is attacking Jews merely because they are born Jews. Messrs Griffin, Barnes and Bean have still not quite grasped that simple definition of a term they are now so fond of throwing at any critic of Israel or even their own BNP policy on the subject.
The octogenarian editor of the BNP’s Identity magazine has a past history of far-right fringe activity, rubbing shoulders with anti-Semites throughout all that time in the 1950s and early 1960s. He was five minutes in Mosley’s Union Movement but then preferred those groups more interested in the ‘international Jewish conspiracy’ rather than serious solutions to Britain’s problems. Now he emerges as an ‘elder statesman’ of the BNP after disappearing completely from political life, after the founding of the National Front in 1967. Up on his pedestal he now dismisses the ’Judeo-obsessives’, as if he were as pure as the driven snow and never said “boo!” to a rabbi.
The attempt at appeasing Jewry has failed. It was never going to work because it was only ever viewed as a tactical ploy by anyone who could see through it. But why is supporting Israel and Jewry so important to a politician who wants to get on? What is the significance of leaked stories such as an alleged midnight call from the Jewish journalist Barbara Amiel, wife of Conrad Black, to Nick Griffin along the lines of, "Isn't it about time that we started to work together for mutual defence against the Muslim threat?". The authenticity of the exchange is highly questionable but the ‘leak’ was not condemned by Griffin because the purpose of relating such an unlikely tale was to send out a message to Jewry at large, preying on fears of Islam. It was Barnes’ dilemma of two tigers and only one bullet.
It is not wrong to condemn Israel for what is done to the Palestinians and it is not wrong to point out that some sections of Jewry put the interests of Israel above those of the countries of which they are citizens.
I recall an article in an old issue of Action of the early 1960s pointing out that there is something just as equally unacceptable as attributing all the world’s ills to a malevolent ‘international Jewish conspiracy’ ... and that is the idea that organised Jewry is blameless, always morally correct and, thus, should be completely immune from criticism. In other words, we should avoid all mention of them for fear of offending. Both views are, of course, irrational and morally unacceptable

Tuesday, 15 January 2008


by Dermont Clark

(Published in European Action number 5, July/August 2006)

[Dermont Clark is a former Union Movement organiser and speaker from Cambridgeshire. In the early 1970s he was a main speaker at “Action Party” conferences until it reverted to “Union Movement” after a couple of years. He later played a role in the Action Society. He is now an enthusiastic supporter of European Action, the successor to the movement’s Action]

The policy of Union Movement, the post Second World War political party of Oswald Mosley, put the emphasis on humane repatriation of immigrants. This was perfectly possible in the 1950s and the 1960s because by 1958 the Indian population had only reached 125,000 and by the late 50s the total number of blacks in Great Britain was 192,000 (or less than 0.5 per cent of the population).However, as we entered the 1980s the demographic changes were being set permanently, and here and now in the 21st Century we must accept that any idea of coerced repatriation is neither possible nor morally defensible. Our immigrant population has established itself, for the most part regards itself as truly British and plays an important part in just about every part of our national life.Just for a moment consider the policy of some “patriotic” British political parties who would repatriate the entire non-European immigrant population over a ten or fifteen year term. The question is, how? If 25,000 sat down in the middle of London the state does not have the manpower to move them, nor the facilities to house them.Are we to return to the occasional stupid and shameful excesses of the British Raj in India when troops were summoned to move protesters and ended up firing with both small arms and artillery on the hapless natives, killing hundreds of mainly old men, women and children?Or do we wish the rest of the world to judge us from the comfort of their living rooms as they see on their TV screens Balkan type ethnic cleansing and huge camps full of huddled masses awaiting deportation back to countries that they no longer know as “home”? This would be racism and bigotry of the worst kind.In his book, “My Life”, Sir Oswald Mosley says, “I have always stood against the exploitation of the old colonialism, the placing of one people on top of another on grounds of alleged superiority or inferiority, which is the only rational definition of racialism and which I reject”.The Editor and contributors to European Action consider Oswald Mosley to have been a politician and philosopher of great vision and often decades ahead of his contemporaries in his planning for and aspirations of Europe a Nation, but we also feel the need to interpret his ideas in the contemporary context, bearing in mind that many things change over the years.Let us try now and relate to the present day, and the difficulties that we face in regard to the many issues surrounding immigration. The Government of the day has a moral obligation to protect and secure the borders of the United Kingdom and a National Party of Europe has the same obligation over its boundaries.The people have a right to expect their Government to protect them also from people in their midst who would break the laws of the land and/or wish to do them harm, and also the right to expect equal treatment. The Government should wisely and carefully use the revenues that it raises to manage their Public Services.It is now common knowledge that “New Labour” and the Home Office have lost total control of our borders. They have no idea how many people who shouldn’t be in the UK are living here (their estimate is some 400,000 but it could be more) and, as highlighted in a recent TV documentary, because of pressure from Number 10, the immigration officials are being forced to ignore the deportation of dangerous foreign criminals in order to meet targets.So called “political correctness” means that unfair discrimination is being used to advantage some people over others based on their ethnicity. This is morally wrong and completely stupid. The idea that an applicant’s ability to do a job is of less importance than his or her racial background, etc. is bound to deliver lower rather than higher standards. In the same way, because of poorly drafted laws, many of which have been pushed through to meet this Government’s deadlines of a new scheme or incentive every month or so, there has sprung up a whole legal “industry” to try and manipulate the system to the advantage of immigrants and asylum seekers who are not truly entitled to be in this country, all of which is funded through Legal Aid.What then are the solutions (solutions that are required not just by white voters but right across the racial mix of our voting public)?Firstly, procedures must immediately be put in place and given substantial backing to detain in custody and to return to their country of origin all immigrant criminals who have abused the hospitality of our country, and anyone who has been found guilty of any crime that potentially carries a prison sentence should be deported.Given that the cost of keeping a convict in prison is more expensive than putting them up in a four star hotel, it would seem sensible that these criminals serve their time back in their true homeland, rather than in the UK. This would also free up spaces in our increasingly over-full prisons. This is most easily achieved by subsidising the cost of the imprisonment in their country of origin.Virtually every other democracy in the world has a limit to the number of immigrants that it will accept in any given year, often broken down into specific numbers from individual countries. Indeed, one of the reasons for West Indian migration to the UK was the 1952 McCarren-Walter Act that changed the rules originally permitting some 65,000 British Commonwealth citizens to come to America each year, to restrict the number of Caribbeans to only 800.In addition, many countries will give preference within their quota to specified trades and professions (say, builders and doctors) and, in addition, will often apply other requirements such as the need to pass medical examinations, often a requirement (especially for older applicants) to post surety against the cost to the state of any medical treatment and an exclusion from any Social Security benefits for, say, the first three years.All of that seems perfectly sensible and reasonable. I can understand that families living in the UK want to bring over their elderly parents and their siblings. As long as they fall within the allotted quotas and do not cost the taxpayer any money, I have no objections. If we wanted to go to the United States or Australia, the same conditions would apply irrespective of race or colour.Asylum seekers are a particularly difficult area because, while one does not want to return the genuine applicant to a country where they are likely to be abused or tortured, the system is very muddled and unclear.This encourages “shyster” lawyers to challenge decisions to repatriate their clients and to “play the system” by telling those claiming the right to settle here to falsely claim they are from such and such a country “because under Human Rights legislation they can’t send you back”. The enormous cost of all this comes out of the Legal Aid budget funded by you and me, the taxpayers.This needs a root and branch overhaul, with clear and definitive rules, which should include the needs for claimants to prove their identity and country of origin with, if necessary, citizens of certain countries being excluded from entry into the UK. This would make the administration of requests for asylum simpler and more straightforward and eliminate much of the huge cost of court action and counter-action.Finally, what should happen to the half million or so immigrants in this country illegally? Mass deportation seems impractical at best, and as many of these people have settled into our society and contribute to our economy others have suggested an amnesty. I reject the concept of amnesty because these people are here illegally, but as they are located I do believe that the Immigration Service should take into consideration how they have conducted themselves and their circumstances.The first option would be some form of license to stay and work in the UK without granting any rights of citizenship (similar to how Germany after the Second World War recruited necessary immigrant labour from Turkey). After a suitable period of time, and dependent on how they conducted themselves in our society, full citizenship could follow while, of course, all the “bad apples” would immediately be sent packing.Rather than playing the “race card” or, on the other hand, surrendering our control of our borders and sovereignty to the masses who would descend on our land if given half a chance, I believe that a serious and practical solution based on fairness and justice in the best interests of all our citizens irrespective of their race, colour or creed is both a necessity and a duty that a government of which a National Party of Europe was a member would not hesitate to implement.

Friday, 4 January 2008


By Gordon Beckwell
Friends of Oswald Mosley

(Published in the January/February 2008 issue of European Action No 14)

Everybody remembers the first time they heard Oswald Mosley speak. Mine was at precisely 3 o’clock on the afternoon of Sunday, May 14, 1961 in Trafalgar Square. It was a glorious Bank Holiday weekend. Some people say of their first occasion that they “came to jeer but stayed to cheer”. Not me. I knew exactly what I was going to hear and I was not disappointed. A few years previously, aged 15, I had come across a book, ‘Mosley - The Facts’, in the old Chelsea Public Library in Manresa Road. That red-jacketed book began a journey for me that continues half a century later and will not end until the day I hear the chiming of the hour.
In it, Mosley set out his ideas for nothing less than the transformation of Great Britain. His policy of ‘Britain First in Europe a Nation’ would make us strong enough to stop Soviet Russia taking over the rest of Europe without us becoming the servile underling of America. Economic life would flourish within its self-contained frontier, our great industries protected from the destructive effect of cheap labour competition from Asia and Africa.
In time, Europe would become the richest, most powerful and beneficent civilisation the world had ever seen.
A Mosley government would also stop mass immigration once and for all. Even then it was threatening the cultural identity of all the great races of the world; leading to the rootless ‘international airport departure lounge’ society we have today. Large parts of the South London I knew had already become Caribbean or Asiatic townships. I wanted to live in a British city.
The book also described Mosley’s version of an economy based on syndicalist principles. Instead of company profits going into state coffers or the pockets of capitalists, they should be distributed among the working people who produced them. It promised to be the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world.
That first time, as I stood in the Square with the warm sun on my back and some school mates by my side, there was a feeling of anticipation and excitement. And a hint of danger. The crowd stretched back from the base of the Column to the pavement opposite the National Portrait Gallery. On the plinth, beneath Nelson’s distant gaze, stood a man I later knew to be Jeffrey Hamm giving the warm-up speech.
Before long I could hear the sound of drums coming from Whitehall as the Union Movement marchers approached. Then I noticed a number of young men in white shirts and black ties, the unofficial uniform of the Movement, slowly infiltrate the crowd ready to be on hand in the event of trouble. One of them I recognised as Mosley’s red-haired son Max.
Jeffrey Hamm reached the peroration of his speech with perfect timing: “And now I give you a man whose name is on the lips of all Britain, nay, of all Europe – Oswald Mosley”. On to the plinth jumped a grey-haired man in a grey double-breasted suit. He flashed a smile as he quickly appraised his audience and began to speak. His strong, resonant voice filled the Square: I had never heard oratory like this before.
Mosley spoke for over an hour without notes, without hesitation and without interruption. He had a marvellous joined-up way of speaking and a powerful grasp of words. Here was a master in the use of alliteration, intonation and emphasis to make a point and lead to emotive plateaux in the speech that brought thunderous applause. I felt the hairs on the back of my neck stand up more than once.
I have absolutely no recollection of what Mosley said in that speech though no doubt it followed the lines of the book. What I do remember is the feeling. I was no longer a spotty-faced teenager from Chelsea. I was a member of the greatest race the world had ever known and we were going to make history and achieve wonderful things that would be honoured for generations to come. Hey, what’s wrong with that?
By the end of the speech nobody was moving in the Square. Even the day-trippers were rooted to the spot by the man in the double-breasted suit. As the cheering subsided, Mosley descended into the Square surrounded and protected by his followers. As he walked through the throng, a forest of arms rose in the full salute, mine among them. Quickly it was all over, Mosley entered a grey Riley saloon car and was driven swiftly away.
Ten weeks later I remember hurrying back by train from Spain to attend the next Mosley rally in Trafalgar Square held on Sunday, July 30. And I was there again on Sunday, October 8, when the Leader’s new book ‘Mosley – Right or Wrong?’ was launched [see page 4, bottom left - Ed]. You could not help noticing that each time the Square was packed even denser than before. Anyone who had come to feed the pigeons those Sundays was out of luck.

Union Movement’s Finest Hour
But the greatest rally of them all was still to come. On Sunday, May 13, 1962 it felt like half of London was in the Square and along its side streets. Few looked like casual passers by to me. People were getting really worried about immigration and nobody else was willing to make a stand. The Cold War was getting dangerous but few felt that the unilateral disarmament of CND was the answer. The housing problem was still acute. Mosley had common sense answers for all these problems and the common thread was that Europe should unite and unite now. At this time, National Headquarters in Victoria was receiving over a thousand enquiries a week, new branches were springing up and membership was growing.
After another tremendous speech, a column began to form for the march back to NHQ. I fell in with my school chums. Now I know that we used to march three abreast, rather than the usual military four, a little trick to stretch the length of the column. But I could tell something amazing was happening, so many people joined the march that day that when the front was entering Parliament Square the rear had only just left Trafalgar Square. At one point Mosley looked back and commented to the London Area Organiser, Fred Bailey, who was marching by his side, “Quite like old times, Fred”. You just knew that we were on a roll.
As I marched along Whitehall, some scruffy Reds on the pavement spat at us. But it was the proudest moment of my life. On passing through Parliament Square, bells sounded. The East Londoner in front of me shouted, “See, even Big Ben’s chiming for us!”. Everybody laughed.
Then it was up Victoria Street to Union Movement’s NHQ where we were due to disperse. Vauxhall Bridge Road was solid with people right up to Victoria Station, all traffic had long since given up hope of getting through. I stood not four yards away from Mosley. He turned from side to side and repeated, “Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!” Cold words as you read them on the page but the way he said them produced the sensation that a piece of melting ice was running down my spine. I thought, a few more marches like this and the whole of Britain would sit up and take notice.
But other eyes were watching and alarm bells began to ring. An unholy trinity of Establishment, communist and Jewish interests arose and began to act. Reds and the street terrorists of the 62 Group attacked our meetings en masse. The Tory Government banned us from Trafalgar Square and local Labour councils denied us the use their public halls. Mosley and Union Movement fought on but the forces of reaction ranged against us were overwhelming.
Was it all worth it? Of course it was! It sent a message to future generations. Not only about Mosley’s ideas that in modern guise could still bring peace, prosperity and order to human affairs. But the knowledge that if men and women of strong resolve stand bravely, and can endure, then nothing that corrupt enemies can throw at them can ever break them. As the continuing existence of initiatives like ‘European Action’ proves.

Europe a Nation blog by Robert Edwards

Posting on here for Europe a Nation