Originally published in Nationalism Today, October 1980 Print

INTERVIEW WITH ANDREW BRONS

Q. How do you see your role as Chairman?

A. The Chairman of our Party is not an officer in whom all of the power of the Party is concentrated and who has the right to override the decisions of his colleagues; nor, on the other hand, does he hold nothing more than a passive pivotal position, merely responding to decisions taken by others. It is essential that the Chairman of our Party leads, but he must do so by establishing currents of thought, a direction for the Party, premises upon which decisions of the Party will be taken. However, he must not think that he has a monopoly over that role; nor must he think that he can disregard or overrule decisions taken by the Directorate or the Party at its Annual General Meeting.

Q. Since you became Chairman, the National Front has been placing a greater emphasis on economic and social issues. Why is this?

A. Unlike the Marxists, we do not see changing economic relations producing changes in political ideas. However, there is no doubt that economic events do produce changes in allegiances and activities. The economic depression into which Britain is inexorably sinking will lead people from a variety of economic backgrounds to reconsider their traditional allegiances and it is essential that we do everything to point out the connection between the economic plight of the Nation and our economic solutions.

Q. In view of the present economic climate of steadily rising unemployment and rampant, uncontrolled inflation, do you think that the NF will be taking a more radical line in opposing the present liberal-capitalist system?

A. We have always pointed out that we are opposed to laissez-faire policies and that we do not believe that the system automatically produces full employment and a stable currency, in the absence of intervention. Such intervention is particularly, though by no means exclusively, necessary in the financial sector. However, I believe that we must recognise that the capitalist system as it is structured at present is not only economically undesirable under conditions of economic malaise; it is politically undesirable, even under normal conditions. A nationalist state, unlike a liberal state, must ensure that its sovereignty is not undermined by powerful sectional interests. To that end, we must not only consider carefully our attitude to the multi-national companies; we must also consider whether the existence of monopolistic nationally-based but privately-owned industrial and commercial concerns, is consistent with a state that is truly sovereign. Nor should we think that the answer to that problem might be a massive extention of nationalisation. That would either involve politicians concerning themselves with the day-by-day administration of industry or the emergence of powerful bureaucrats who might themselves constitute a powerful sectional interest. Furthermore, in neither case would there be a profit motive. If we are to preserve the sovereignty of the Nation and ensure that everybody benefits from the profit motive, we might consider whether, in those areas in which economies of scale are not apparent or where diversity is considered to be valuable (the strictly retail part of the retail trade might fall into the first category and the brewing industry into the second), we might reduce, by state intervention, the size of the unit of production. In those areas of the economy in which economies of scale are more readily apparent (particularly in those industries with high fixed costs and in the wholesale part of the now largely vertically-integrated retail trade), we might provide a tax system that provides incentives for those employees who wish to buy shares in the companies in which they work and that provides disincentives for those who buy or retain shares in companies in which they have no interest, either as present or retired bona fide employees of that company. The same system might be provided for some (though obviously not all) of the existing public corporations. The difficulty of reconciling commercial interests with social needs could be solved by an extension of the system of specific grants provided by the state for socially desirable but commercially non-viable services, provided in the Transport Act of 1968. Whether such a system could best be described as an attack on the vices of capitalism or an extension of its virtues, is a purely semantic question that can safely be left until later.

Q. You have been placing a great deal of emphasis on the need for ideological development. Do you feel that stressing economic and social issues complements this?

A. I have said that we have to articulate rather than develop our ideology in that its principal tenets are known intuitively by the Movement. However, there is no doubt that there are areas, particularly in the economic and social fields, where we have not yet developed our main principles. I feel that our economic and social principles do not so much complement our ideology; they are an essential part of it.

Q. Another problem facing the British economy is the chronically poor state of industrial relations. Do you believe that the added incentive provided by profit and power sharing schemes would help to alleviate this problem?

A. I fear that mere profit sharing schemes and provisions for the nominal representation of employees on the boards of companies will not go far enough to avoid industrial conflict. It is essential that employees gain a sense of shared proprietorship in the companies for which they work by substantial share ownership in those companies. Nominal representation and 'bonus' schemes that are divorced from proprietorship will never be taken seriously by employees and there would always be a danger of such 'representation' being dominated by highly motivated Marxists.

Q. Apart from profit and power sharing schemes, do you believe that there are other racial nationalist policies which would help to improve industrial relations?

A. Bad industrial relations may well be partly caused by politically motivated trade unionists and the multiplicity of trade unions in each industry. However, there is no doubt that inflation, which is the cause and not the result of high pay settlements, is the biggest single factor in bad industrial relations. Our reform of the monetary system will undoubtedly remove the root cause of inflation, and therefore of industrial strife. Unfortunately, the wide fluctuations in the real incomes of virtually all employees, resulting from high inflation and periodic and high pay settlements, has resulted in the expectations of employees sticking at the peaks of their real earnings. It is probable that a prolonged period of economic depression, which will certainly precede the emergence of a Nationalist government, together with a rise in real prosperity resulting from an end to usury, will solve that problem.

Q. Do you think that Britain will see a racial economic collapse in the foreseeable future? If so, how do you feel our Party can best prepare itself to meet such an eventuality?

A. There is no doubt that the economic system contains contradictions that will lead to its collapse, sooner or later. Those contradictions cannot be resolved without a massive revolution in the system, which the Establishment would never contemplate, because its own power would be destroyed in the process. As spectators of the multiracial society, we can say that there are already signs of its imminent collapse. As reluctant participants in that society, we can say with even greater certainty, that we are determined that it will! The power of the Establishment, in both areas, is restricted to determining whether it will be sooner or later; and to changing the record of what is actually happening, through its control of the media. It must be our job to hasten the demise of the system, through our activities and by telling the public the truth through our own media. We must also ensure that the Party is organised to cope with the highly unstable conditions of the future. Our members must be well-versed in economic issues and they must be able to explain those issues to potentially hostile audiences on the street corner, in the dole queue and on the factory floor. They must build up a record of concrete practical help to white people in multiracial areas, so that in times of racial trouble, they come to us as their obvious protectors.

Q. Finally, taking into account likely political, racial and socio-economic developments, how do you envisage the future progress of our Party?

A. The unstable conditions of the future will not only provide us with unprecedented opportunities, they will also face us with unprecedented opposition on the streets and elsewhere. Furthermore, when we are seen to be succeeding in taking advantage of those opportunities, the Establishment will undoubtedly attempt to take action against us that has so far been unnecessary. Our Party is dedicated to the destruction of everything that the old parties and their backers hold dear; they will not let us do so without a struggle. It must be our job to convince the functionaries of the Establishment that obedience to their political masters in carrying out novel and previously unlawful actions against us, might prove to be less convenient, than continued obedience. If there are members who feel that they cannot take the pressure, they had better get out now, while the going is relatively good. However, the pressure that we have undergone so far, has weeded out the weak and faltering amongst our membership. We are now left with a new breed of member who knows that we can win and is determined that we shall!