The Triumph of the Nomads? By Brian Simpson

     Americans  have more freedom of speech than we do in Australia, at least for a few more moments. Hence, if you are interested in reading a critique and deconstruction of “our greatest historian’ Geoffrey Blainey’s Triumph of the Nomads by Spencer Quinn look no further than:
  https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/10/triumph-of-the-nomads/

     Our side of politics tends to look up to Blainey for stating that Asianisation was proceeding faster than public opinion. My apologises if my memory is letting me down, but I do not recall Blainey actually saying that Australia should not be Asianised at all, that the country as is, had a right to autonomous existence. His 1984 statement was about the pace. Of course, it was his right to advance and defend what position he did, but he is no racial realist. His comments back in 1984, were meek and mild, but still quite reasonable, compared to what is said today. All for Australia, is not a book like the fantastic book by Alan James, New Britannia: The Rise and Decline of Anglo-Australia, (Renewal Publications, 2013), which explicitly defends Anglo-Australia, as an ethnic group with rights:
  https://www.amazon.com.au/New-Britannia-Alan-James/dp/1300542926/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1540681549&sr=8-1&keywords=alan+james+new+britannia

     That said, Blainey is to be commended for pointing out the civilisational destroying aspects of multiculturalism, and for taking a stand against the fanatical “intellectuals” who immediately worked to destroy his reputation, for saying things which are now common place. Here is a sample of wisdom from All for Australia (1984):

•    Every nation has the right to control its own immigration. To shape sensibly an immigration policy is to influence nearly every facet of life, now and for generations to come.
•    Democracy is not like a long-term loan of property to be entrusted by the people to the government and its small group of advisors. And yet in recent years a small group of people has successfully snatched immigration policy from the public arena, and has even placed a taboo on the discussion of vital aspects of immigration.
•    Our immigration policy is increasingly based on an appeal to international precepts that our neighbours sensibly refuse to practise. We are surrendering much of our own independence to a phantom opinion that floats vaguely in the air and rarely exists on this earth. We should think very carefully about the perils of converting Australia into a giant multicultural laboratory for the assumed benefit of the peoples of the world.
•    An immigration policy in any country is based more or less on discrimination. A minister of immigration is a minister of discrimination. If he isn't, he is not carrying out his responsibilities.
•    On the immigration issue the suspicions towards democracy and the distrust towards free speech have come largely from the Left. The distrust of free speech has been especially noticeable amongst a small scatter of academics, members of a profession that by its very nature depends on freedom of inquiry and speech.
•    Whereas the old White Australia Policy, in its extreme form, kept out all Asians, the new policy could be moving towards the opposite extreme. In calling for a strong, long-term flow of Third World migrants, it foreshadows the sacrificing of vital Australian interests on behalf of vague international creeds. It is also forsaking out historical experience for the sake of a nimble dream.
•    Again and again Australia is depicted as a bonanza - ready made - that was snatched from the Aboriginals. But the Australia of the Aboriginals, distinctive as were its achievements, was not a bonanza. Generations of Australians since 1788 have developed this land and its resources, applying sweat and grit and ingenuity. Asian immigrants had the opportunity to come, several hundred years ago, but they had no incentive to come. Australia then was not worth colonizing.
•    Immigration is everyone's business: it is one of the most important national issues. The idea that it is too dangerous to be debated is a mockery of democracy. It is too important not to debate.
•    The ethnic composition of the population - and the particular mixture of nationalities, languages and cultures - is a matter of importance to all nations. The selection of immigrants should not be seen primarily as a test of which nationalities are best. It is more important to select immigrants with an eye to the collective effect on the nation. An immigration policy is not a symbol, a banner, of a nation's attitude to other peoples or races; and to reject potential immigrants is in no way to doubt the worthiness of their nationality or culture.
•    The multicultural policy has, at times, tended to emphasize the rights of ethnic minorities at the expense of the majority of Australians, thus unnecessarily encouraging divisions and weakening social cohesion. It has tended to be anti-British, and yet the people from the United Kingdom and Ireland form the dominant class of pre-war immigrants and the largest single group of post-war immigrants.
•    Recent governments emphasize the merits of a multicultural society and ignore the dangers. And yet the evidence is clear that many multicultural societies have failed and that the human cost of the failure has been high.
•    There are dangers in the increasing belief that toleration can simply be imposed on people by a variety of new laws and by a bureaucracy specializing in ethnic affairs, cultural relations and human rights. Unfortunately, the laws and regulatory bodies, introduced in the hope of promoting toleration, can be invoked to attack freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and those principles on which minority rights must, in the last resort, depend. A sensible humane immigration policy is more likely than most of these new agencies and laws - present or proposed - to maintain and foster racial toleration.

  https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Blainey

     Overall, while Blainey did not see, or at least present, the full picture, and even if he did he would not have been able to say it any way at the time, looked at in the historical context, he was an intellectual hero, as far as we have heroes in Australia.