Blainey’s Back! Who? by Brian Simpson
Confession time; before turning to the Alt Right, I had “Leftist” sympathies of a vague sort. Actually, in the mid-1980s about (1984), my girlfriend at the time was a socialist type who was active in the protest against Professor Geoffrey Blainey. All that was the turning point for that 20-year old science student.
Blainey had said something mild like “the pace of Asian migrant is out stripping public opinion.” Rightly, he seemed concerned mainly with the influx of poorly educated Asians who were, allegedly adding to unemployment. For any reasonable person that was a claim worthy of considered reflection. For this he was viciously attacked by the Left, including my girlfriend at the time, who at one protest threw an egg or something at him, which fortunately missed. But this was a wake-up call for me about the fanaticism of Leftism, and I immediately broke up with her and began my journey to the Right, which was the right thing to do.
Blainey was not only attacked physically by vicious Leftoids, the shock troops, but he was also “intellectually” attacked by academics who sought to destroy the intellectual foundations of his historical work. Even at the age of 21 or 22, studying maths and biology (after failing Physics I), I saw through this. If Blainey’s historical work was flawed, then why hadn’t these “objective” scholars shown this previously? It was clearly a nasty spiteful act that academics excel in.
Blainey’s claim about Asianisation was, looking back, extremely conservative. He didn’t oppose outright Australia becoming part of Asia in the sense of majority Asian, but only the rate of this transformation. My apologies to him if I am wrong, but I did not find from the literature of the time the sort of “white identity” claim often made by myself and others, that Australia should remain predominately a White-British-based nation, ethno-racially and culturally.
Blainey, I believe, is a conservative, not an identity nationalist, as seen in Alt Right intellectuals in France, such as Guillaume Faye, or a racial realist theorist such as Australia’s own Dr Frank Salter. This is not a criticism: he is what he is.
Recently (The Weekend Australian, October 29-30, 2016, p. 7) reported that Blainey is concerned about Muslim immigration which is an even greater threat to “social cohesion” that Asian immigration over 30 years ago. Home grown terrorism is but one such threat. He thinks that a total ban on Muslim immigration would be “harsh,” and he did not want to be “drawn into a public controversy beyond his control” by “advocating a reduction in Muslim immigration,” because, apart from being age 86, he doesn’t’ have “information about the extent of the security problem.” Then why say anything at all?
Blainey has a new book, The Story of Australia’s People – The Rise and Rise of a New Australia. This book is, I presume, written in English. He might have asked the question: will there be English speakers in Australia able to read this book in 100 years’ time? What sense will “Australia” still exist if it is swallowed up by China, and/or Islamisation?