You Really Do Have To Wonder Why People Are So Easily Panicked!

The good news upfront – 2 x 500 mg Panadol tabs every 4-6 hours for a few days is totally safe in adults with no known liver disease! The same dose is also safe in pregnancy.

This appeared a day or so ago:

Anatomy of a full-blown crisis for company that makes Tylenol (= Panadol In Australia)

Peter Loftus, Alyssa Lukpat and Sara Ashley O’Brien

The stakes are high – a direct assault on the brand by the US president could open up the company to legal challenges. Picture: Elizabeth Coetzee/WSJ

27 September, 2025

The chief executive of the company that makes Tylenol got a text message earlier this month that contained nothing but a single link to a Substack post.

In the post, a promoter of Covid-19 misinformation was connecting autism with acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol.

The text was from the nation’s top health official, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. At that moment, it was clear to CEO Kirk Perry that his efforts to convince Kennedy that there was no science behind such claims had failed.

On Monday, Perry faced a full-blown crisis. In an extraordinary public announcement that contradicted widespread medical consensus and even his own top health advisers, President Donald Trump warned that acetaminophen is a potential cause of autism, and urged expecting mothers to “tough it out” without the drug if they could.

“Taking Tylenol is not good,” the President told the world as Kennedy, the Health and Human Services secretary, looked on.

That claim has sent the medical establishment into panic mode. And it’s thrown Kenvue, the company that makes Tylenol, into crisis – just 70 days into Perry’s tenure as CEO.

Tylenol set the gold standard for corporate crisis management in 1982 after people died from taking its pain medication that had been tampered with and laced with cyanide. In a case now studied by business students and companies everywhere, the brand won back public trust with a quick recall, a redesign of its bottles to be tamper-resistant, and lots of coupons.

The stakes this time may be even higher. A direct assault on the brand by the president of the US could open up the company to legal challenges. That is one reason that Kenvue’s stock hit an all-time low this past week. Perry and his team are also grappling with the possibility that millions of pregnant women around the world will avoid Tylenol when they have fevers, infections or other symptoms.

Leaving those ailments untreated could increase birth defects and could itself contribute to a rise in autism, according to leading medical organisations and regulators in other countries.

Donald Trump speaks about autism at the White House during the week. Picture: AFP

Perry has been talking with his friend, pastor Brian Tome of Crossroads Church in Cincinnati, regularly over the past few days. Tome has reminded Perry of Bible verses that can be encouraging in hard times, and that Jesus said that his followers should “take up his cross daily, and follow me”.

“He doesn’t like what he’s going through,” Tome says of Perry. “He certainly wishes it was different, but I’m not seeing any bitterness in him and I think that’s because of his faith.”

Raised in Detroit by young parents who were assembly workers for Ford, Perry was the first in his family to graduate from college. He attended the University of Cincinnati after working at Wendy’s for about a year and a half to save up the tuition.

He met his wife, Jacki, at a Piggly Wiggly grocery store in Ohio when he was 18. They married in his senior year of college and have four children.

He has frequently said he leaned on religion when his then six-year-old daughter was being treated for kidney cancer. When a doctor told him and his wife that their daughter’s emergency colon surgery was successful, he dropped to the floor and wept. He said he realised God wasn’t making his daughter suffer, but God was with them when bad things happened.

Perry, 59, retired earlier this year after a career in marketing that included stints at Google and Procter & Gamble. His last job had been as CEO of market-research firm Circana. He was excited to coach high-school football, do mission work with his wife and hunt elk with friends. Then Kenvue called.

“Quite possibly the shortest retirement ever,” he wrote on LinkedIn this northern summer. Kenvue became independent two years ago when Johnson & Johnson split off its consumer-health unit. In addition to Tylenol, the Summit, New Jersey, company includes other famous brands such as Band-Aid, Johnson’s Baby Shampoo and the Neutrogena and Aveeno lines of shampoos and creams. J&J said the name Kenvue signified knowledge and sight.

Mother of autistic children slams Trump's autism comments

From the start, Kenvue fought attacks linking Tylenol to autism, but it didn’t get much attention. Some 500 lawsuits had been filed against Kenvue and other makers of acetaminophen products in federal courts, alleging that use of the drug during pregnancy caused autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children.

The lawsuits were based on a series of studies suggesting an association between acetaminophen and autism, though other studies had found no association.

An expert witness for plaintiffs was Dr Andrea Baccarelli, dean of the faculty of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. A federal judge in New York concluded that Baccarelli’s opinions about causation weren’t admissible in the litigation.

Kenvue argued in court that there was no credible evidence of a causal link. The judge sided with Kenvue in December 2023 and the cases were dismissed, though plaintiffs are appealing and some lawsuits have been filed in state courts.

Tylenol continued to sell well, though Kenvue’s beauty division was floundering. In July, the board ousted its CEO, a J&J veteran who had led the company since the spinoff, and brought in Perry while it searched for a permanent replacement.

Perry thought his challenge would be to turn around the beauty brands. On his first call with analysts to discuss quarterly results on August 7, he said he needed to streamline the product portfolio because the company made too many items that were generating only a small fraction of its sales.

Tylenol packages are seen in a pharmacy in Houston, Texas. About 500 lawsuits had been filed against its maker Kenvue and other makers of acetaminophen products in federal courts, alleging that use of the drug during pregnancy caused autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children. Picture: AFP

The company embarked on a review of strategic alternatives that some analysts say may include selling some assets – or even the entire company. The review is still under way.

A week later, there was an early sign of the trouble to come. A journal called BMC Environmental Research on August 14 published the results of an analysis by researchers from Harvard’s public-health school and other institutions.

They analysed past studies on the topic and said a majority of the studies found an association between acetaminophen and neurodevelopmental disorders including autism, though they stopped short of saying there was definitive evidence of causation.

The study was co-authored by Baccarelli, the Harvard dean whose expert testimony had been thrown out in court.

Baccarelli discussed his findings in recent weeks with Kennedy and Dr Jay Bhattacharya, the director of the National Institutes of Health, Baccarelli said in a statement provided by Harvard. Those phone calls took place in early September, a university spokeswoman added.

Kennedy’s autism views are based on “his ideology”, not science

“We've created an association that is false: The lack of vaccines and the lack of Tylenol is somehow associated with...

Kennedy reached out to Kenvue to set up a meeting with Perry. They arranged to meet the week of September 8. Days before the meeting took place, The Wall Street Journal reported that Kennedy was also working on a report that would say pregnant women’s use of Tylenol was potentially linked to autism.

In the meeting with Kennedy, Perry and Kenvue’s chief scientific officer, Caroline Tillett, made their case that there was no clear evidence linking autism and acetaminophen, and that there weren’t good alternatives to acetaminophen during pregnancy.

Kennedy agreed that there weren’t safe alternatives, according to people familiar with the matter. He discussed doing additional research, and asked that the executives set up follow-up meetings with Dr Mehmet Oz, the head of the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Bhattacharya.

Centres for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator Dr Mehmet Oz speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House during the week along with Mr Trump. AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

Perry and Tillett came away from the meeting thinking it had gone well, and that Kennedy’s request to set up additional meetings with Oz and Bhattacharya was a good sign that they could work with the administration.

But days later, Kennedy texted Perry the link to a Substack written by Sayer Ji, the founder of an alternative-health information platform called GreenMedInfo who has spoken at events alongside prominent members of Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement. Ji has contended that vaccinations, prenatal ultrasounds and “stressors” from cesarean sections are among other factors that can increase autism risk.

Perhaps the meeting hadn’t been as much of a success as they’d thought. The Kenvue board of directors held a regularly scheduled meeting the week of Sept. 15. Perry and his management team briefed the board on Kennedy’s impending autism report, but there wasn’t much discussion, according to a person familiar with the matter. Certainly nothing that painted it as anything other than routine business.

00:05 / 00:53

Trump tying Tylenol to autism 'not based in fact': autism expert

U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday (September 22) linked autism to childhood vaccines and also to the use of...

Trump started to tee up his autism announcement a few days later, announcing on Friday, Sept. 19, that he was planning to hold a press conference. That Sunday, in a packed football stadium for the memorial service for assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump promised a Monday announcement about “an answer to autism”.

The company issued a statement, worded more strongly than its prior public comments. Science clearly shows that taking acetaminophen doesn’t cause autism, it said.

“We strongly disagree with any suggestion otherwise and are deeply concerned with the health risk this poses for expecting mothers.”

Kenvue on Monday cancelled its meetings with Oz and Bhattacharya.

Just before 5pm local time on Monday, at the start of his press conference televised from the White House’s Roosevelt Room, President Trump tripped up pronouncing acetaminophen as he said it was associated with a “very increased” risk of autism.

The President switched to referring to it as Tylenol for the rest of the news conference. “So taking Tylenol is not good, all right, I’ll say it. It’s not good,” he said, as Kennedy stood by.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House during the week as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr listens. AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

The President acknowledged that he was diverging from the health leaders he chose to guide him: “Bobby wants to be very careful with what he says, ” Trump said, referring to Kennedy. “But I’m not so careful with what I say.”

The Wall Street Journal

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/health/medical/mark-butler-seeks-advice-on-autism-after-trump-suggests-paracetamol-link/news-story/272cfa434160560945a9977ac58b28c6

Trump autism claims spark debate about modern chemical exposure

The Therapeutic Goods Administration has advised women paracetamol is safe to take during pregnancy despite Donald Trump linking the medication to increased autism rates.

Natasha Robinson

Mark Butler has asked for advice on Donald Trump's link of the use of Panadol during pregnancy with autism.

5:36 AM September 24, 2025

One of Australia’s foremost researchers into neuroscience and the developing brain has urged medical bodies not to dismiss out of hand concerns around paracetamol use in pregnancy despite no causative link between the drug and autism being established.

The Florey Institute for Neuroscience and Mental Health’s division head for early brain science department and head of the neuroepidemiology research group, Anne-Louise Ponsonby, said the Trump administration had opened up an important conversation about the interplay between people’s significant exposure to environmental toxins in modern societies and its complex interplay with genetics.

Although Australia’s health regulator has advised women paracetamol is safe to take during pregnancy, Professor Ponsonby said the consistent findings across a string of high-quality studies that reported an association between paracetamol use in pregnancy and autism rates in children should not be dismissed completely.

“I think it’s a good idea to look at all types of manufactured chemicals and to review how much they’re needed for pregnant women,” Professor Ponsonby said. “The data is not causal evidence, but there are some positive links between Panadol and autism, and they do deserve further investigation.”

The US Department of Health issued a fact sheet on Tuesday pointing to a number of large-scale cohort studies that reported associations between in-utero exposure to paracetamol and later diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder, the incidence of which has risen markedly in the past two decades worldwide. It also acknowledged conflicting family-based studies which dismissed any association but pointed to Harvard and Mt Sinai university criticisms of these studies.

A Harvard study published in August this year reported that eight studies analysed paracetamol use in pregnancy and the development of autism, with five reporting positive associations. Evaluating those studies, the study said: “ultimately, there was strong evidence of a relationship between prenatal acetaminophen use and increased risk of ASD in children”.

Australia’s medicines regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, said it had no current safety investigations for paracetamol and autism, or paracetamol and neurodevelopment disorders more broadly. Acetaminophen is known as paracetamol in Australia and many other countries.

“Paracetamol remains Pregnancy Category A in Australia, meaning that it is considered safe for use in pregnancy,” the TGA said.

Pregnancy Category A applies to drugs which have been taken by a large number of pregnant women and women of child-bearing age without any proven increase in the frequency of malformations or other direct or indirect harmful effects on the foetus having been observed.

The TGA’s present advice is that paracetamol can be used during pregnancy if clinically needed but should be used at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time. It classifies any risk to babies from paracetamol use by mothers during pregnancy as “remote” but urges women to discuss the use of the medication with their doctor.

Australia’s Health Minister Mark Butler had asked the TGA to provide advice on the use of paracetamol after Mr Trump flagged his announcement on the drug.

Professor Ponsonby said that while not causative, the association between autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and paracetamol across several studies might reflect that the development of autism involved a complex interplay of environment and genetics and rising incidence of the condition could not be solely explained by more frequent diagnosis.

“Multiple genes and multiple environment factors contribute to autism as it is a multifactorial disease,” Professor Ponsonby said. “At least part of the rise in incidence is thought to reflect a real increase in cases – driven in part by modern environment.

“Several key areas of evidence deserve attention: the interplay of genetic and environmental factors; consistent associations between ASD and air pollution, and links to toxic chemicals like bisphenol-A, PFAS and pesticides.”

Professor Ponsonby said these kinds of findings highlighted the need for deep molecular studies to identify causation. She said it might not be the drug itself but the underlying reason for using the drug that may be significant.

The Australian Academy of Sciences described evidence of any possible link between paracetamol and autism as weak.

“There is no causal evidence that paracetamol causes autism,” the AAHMS said in a paper on the issue. “Large, high-quality population studies do not find a causal relationship between paracetamol use and autism.”

The academy stressed that letting a high fever continue during pregnancy presented a much greater risk than using the medicine.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says acetaminophen is safe to use in pregnancy, though it recommends that pregnant women consult with their doctors before using it, as with all medicines.

“In more than two decades of research on the use of acetaminophen in pregnancy, not a single reputable study has successfully concluded that (its use) in any trimester of pregnancy causes neurodevelopmental disorders in children,” the American O & G college said.

The parent company of Tylenol’s maker also backed the product’s safety.

“We believe independent, sound science clearly shows that taking acetaminophen does not cause autism,” said a spokeswoman for Kenvue, the parent company of Tylenol’s maker. “We strongly disagree with any suggestion otherwise and are deeply concerned with the health risk this poses for expecting mothers.”

The National Institutes of Health in the US is leading a report on the causes of autism that was expected to be a review of existing scientific literature and be released on September 29, according to people familiar with the matter. It is unclear whether the full report will still be released, or when.

Mr Trump said autism rates have increased from one in 20,000 to one in 12 among boys in some populations. He also said there was “no autism” among the Amish, who he said don’t take medications.

Mr Kennedy also warned against Tylenol use for young children. “Prudent medicine suggests caution,” he said.

Here is a link:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-wall-street-journal/anatomy-of-a-fullblown-crisis-for-company-that-makes-tylenol/news-story/c39413c36a2bc09836b16c65ca7d47a2

You really have to wonder about all this: ! Taking too much Panadol is dangerous and if you take too much it can cause liver failure and death. (Risk is only if an adult takes 20+ tablets all at the same time!) Taking 2 tables every 3-4 hours for a day or two for pain or fever is totally safe!

To say again, like most approved drugs, taken as directed (2 x 500mg tabs every 4-6 hours) Panadol is totally safe and good for fever and mild pain.

All the rest is a beat up – although people with known liver disease should ask their doctor for their recommendations as to dose! to be sure....

David.

What Do You Imagine Russia Is Playing At?

This appeared earlier today…

Poland closes part of its airspace to ensure ‘state security’

Updated Sep 28, 2025 – 1.30pm, first published at 7.41am

1.19PM

Poland closes part of its airspace

David Mills

Poland has closed part of its airspace due to “unplanned military activity related to ensuring state security”, according to a post on the FlightRadar24 website.

The closed airspace is near the cities of Lublin and Rzeszow, in the country’s south-east, near the border with Ukraine. The closure is in effect until 4am UTC (2pm AEST).

Earlier this month, Poland shot down 20 Russian drones it said had violated its airspace. Last week, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned any “flying objects” violating Polish territory would be shot down, and there was “no room for debate”.

Russian drones and aircraft have also recently been spotted in Romanian and Estonian airspace.

With Reuters

Here is the link:

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/need-to-know-afr-sunday-september-28-20250928-p5myeq

Here is more:

‘Would be war’: Russian ambassador’s threat as NATO clashes over whether to down Russian jets

A Russian ambassador has warned that shooting down Moscow's aircraft would trigger war as NATO grapples with how to respond to airspace violations.

Jack Evans

@Jackevansreport

September 27, 2025 - 4:21AM

Russia is prepared to go to war if NATO acts on threats to shoot down Moscow’s fighter jets, an ambassador has said.

An escalating pattern of Russian incursions across Europe’s eastern borders has led to calls within NATO for stronger action, including from US President Donald Trump who said “yes, I do” when asked if he believed countries should shoot down Russian planes breaching their territory.

After high-profile Russian violations over Poland and Estonia, NATO’s Secretary-General Mark Rutte this week said the alliance wouldn’t rule out shooting down Russian aircraft that violate their airspace.

Mr Rutte said the Western military alliance stands ready to take decisive action when faced with threats to member nations.

“You can be assured we will do what is necessary to defend our cities, our people, our infrastructure,” the alliance chief said. “It doesn’t mean that we will always immediately shoot down a plane.”

In response, Alexey Meshkov, the Russian ambassador to France, has said that shooting down Russian aircraft “would be war”.

“You know, there are many NATO planes that violate Russian airspace, deliberately or not, but it happens quite often. They are not shot down afterwards”.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte says the alliance will ‘do what is necessary’ to defend member nations but won’t always ’immediately shoot down a plane’. Picture: John Thys / AFP

More planes fly close to NATO airspace

Five Russian fighter jets were caught flying perilously close to NATO airspace on Friday, reports The Sun.

The NATO Allied Air Command said it intercepted three MiG-31s, one Su-30 and one Su-35 fighter jets flying in a formation off the coast of Latvia.

Two Hungarian Gripen fighter jets were scrambled to lead an escort mission as part of NATO Baltic Air Policing mission.

After visual identification and escort, the Russian formation turned away, and the Gripens returned to base, it was reported.

Eastern nations want a more forceful response

NATO members appear increasingly divided over how forcefully to respond to Russian incursions. Some eastern European nations have called for a tougher stance while others warn against escalation that could drag the alliance into direct conflict with Moscow.

However, behind the public disagreements, NATO officials insist the alliance’s position remains clear and consistent.

“It’s a bit of an artificial debate. No changes are foreseen to these rules,” one NATO diplomat told the AFP on condition of anonymity.

The most vocal calls for action have come from NATO’s eastern flank countries, who feel most directly threatened by Russian aggression.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Warsaw would “react toughly” to any violations, while his top diplomat Radoslaw Sikorski told Moscow not to “whine” if its jets are taken out.

Lithuania’s defence minister Dovile Sakaliene pointed to precedent, saying NATO-member Turkey “set an example 10 years ago” when it shot down a Russian jet that entered its airspace from Syria. That incident caused a major diplomatic crisis between Ankara and Moscow, before Turkey apologised and the two sides patched up the dispute.

Calls for restraint

However, not all NATO members are convinced that aggressive responses are the right approach.

German defence minister Boris Pistorius cautioned allies not to fall into the “escalation trap” as fears rise that the war in Ukraine could spill over.

“Slapdash demands to shoot something out of the sky or do some great show of strength help less than anything else right now,” he said.

NATO fighter jets scrambled to intercept Russian aircraft that violated Polish and Estonian airspace in recent incidents, with some drones shot down over Poland. Picture: Thibaud Moritz / AFP

French President Emmanuel Macron struck a more ambiguous note, saying NATO should take its response “up a notch” while insisting that “we aren’t going to open fire” in the face of Russian tests.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also appeared to contradict his boss, saying there wasn’t any talk of “shooting down Russian jets unless they’re attacking”.

“I think what you have seen is NATO responding to those intrusions the way we respond to them all the time,” he said.

NATO’s rules of engagement

Despite the public debate, NATO’s stance on rules of engagement remains straightforward: if the alliance believes an aircraft poses a threat, it is ready to shoot.

Recent incidents over Poland, Estonia and possibly Denmark in recent days suggest nuanced approach is already being taken.

When some 20 Russian drones crossed into Poland, NATO scrambled jets and shot down those seen as posing a menace – marking the first time NATO had taken out Russian aircraft since Moscow’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Recent Russian airspace violations have occurred over Poland and Estonia, highlighting tensions along NATO’s eastern flank as the alliance grapples with how to respond. Picture: Wojtek Radwanski / AFP

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk says Warsaw will ’react toughly’ to airspace violations, with his foreign minister telling Moscow not to ’whine’ if jets are taken out. Picture: AFP

Days later, when three armed Russian fighters violated Estonian airspace over the Gulf of Finland for some 12 minutes, NATO jets only “escorted the aircraft without escalation”, Rutte said.

“No immediate threat was assessed,” he explained.

The situation is complicated by the fact that individual member states can have different rules of engagement when confronting Russian aircraft. NATO officials say Poland or other countries could act unilaterally if they choose, but given their reliance on allies for much of their air defences, they may lack the means.

Estonia, for example, doesn’t have its own fighter jets.

NATO members have appeared divided over how forcefully to respond to provocations from Putin’s forces, but officials insist the alliance’s rules of engagement remain clear. Picture: Ramil Sitdikov/Pool Photo via AP

Boosting Eastern defences

Rather than overhauling its approach to incursions, NATO is focused on bolstering its eastern defences.

After the drone incidents in Poland, the alliance announced a new mission called Eastern Sentry, with several countries rushing jets to the region.

However, NATO diplomats acknowledge the alliance still lacks sufficient capabilities, particularly the sort of low-cost weaponry that Ukraine uses to shoot down Russian drones.

The European Union has meanwhile announced plans to create a “drone wall” to help better track potential incursions, though few details have been released so far.

-With AFP and The Sun

Here is the link:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/shoot-or-boot-nato-chief-wont-rule-out-downing-russian-jets-as-alliance-grapples-with-airspace-violations/news-story/ff5da8b645cfa3738edbe48fe90899bf

All I can say is that this needs to be calmed down and fairly soon! A shooting war we do not need!

David.

AusHealthIT Poll No 811 - September, 2025

Here are the results of the recent poll.

Are You Satisfied With The Quality Of Service From The NBN?

Yes                                                                       4 (80%)

No                                                                        1 (20%)

I Have No Idea                                                      0 (0%)

Total No. Of Votes 5

A very clear vote with virtually no-one voting

Any insights on the poll are welcome, as a comment, as usual! Remember both Telstra and Optus are basically just retailers these days, with the NBN doing the tech lifting!

Very poor voter turnout – question must have been useless. Result to be ignored I reckon!

0 of 5 who answered the poll admitted to not being sure about the answer to the question!

Again, many, many thanks to all those very, very few who voted! 

David.

It Really Would Be Good If Optus Got Their Act Together!

We heard much too much about this last week!

Has Optus learnt anything from the ‘technical’ problems of the past two years?

By Supratim Adhikari

September 19, 2025 — 8.01pm

Any chance of Optus’ new boss, Stephen Rue, moving Australia’s second-biggest telco in the right direction has been fatally derailed.

A surprise press conference late on Friday afternoon hinted at trouble. A 5.30pm all-hands-on-deck chat with the press usually means little else – and that’s exactly what was in store.

A solemn-faced Rue delivered the news – a technical failure, 600 Triple Zero calls failing to connect, three people dead.

Rue’s tenure as chief executive is almost certainly headed for a swift end.

Optus showed its former chief executive, Kelly Bayer Rosmarin, the door after the telco endured a data breach that exposed sensitive details of 9.8 million customers in 2022, and a nationwide outage in 2023 that scuttled almost 2100 Triple Zero calls, under her watch that led to a $12 million fine. The stakes are much higher for Rue.

Related Article

 

Updated

Telecommunications

Three people dead after Optus Triple Zero outage

One can only imagine what Rue’s paymaster in Singapore (Optus is owned by Singtel) would be thinking about the latest fiasco to plague their Australian outfit.

Rue was appointed chief executive by Singtel to clean up the joint after a horror 18 months or so at Optus, and to his credit he hit the ground running when he started in November. Management lines were streamlined, plans were in place to bring costs under control, and the mea culpas for problems inherited were dutifully delivered.

But on Friday, Rue was staring down a problem that at the very least raises serious questions about whether Optus has learnt anything from the “technical” problems of the past two years.

The outage in 2023 and the latest blunder, with its deadly consequences, all took place during network upgrades. These upgrades – where a telco such as Telstra, Optus or TPG, selectively shuts down systems to improve their network and then brings them back online – are routine.

Related Article

 

Exclusive

Telecommunications

Optus’ year from hell raises questions for parent company Singtel

They happen regularly and mostly with minimal problems. Optus has now had two botched upgrades, with the latest one preventing Triple Zero calls in three states and territories that led to three deaths – two in South Australia and one in Western Australia.

Optus has promised a thorough, forensic investigation, which should reveal what exactly went wrong. A band of network engineers, possibly contractors, and project managers would have some serious questions to answer. And it still remains to be verified that the deaths were directly related to an inability to make Triple Zero calls.

But that will all be cold comfort to the families of the deceased, and do nothing for Optus’ reputation, already tarnished by its previous mistakes.

Apart from Rue, this technical error will also be a test for Optus’ new chairman, John Arthur, who replaced Paul O’Sullivan, in August. After a turbulent couple of years, Singtel was banking on Rue and Arthur to get down with the task of reasserting Optus as a credible alternative to Telstra.

It may be back to square one for Optus on that front.

Here is the link:

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/has-optus-learnt-anything-from-the-technical-problems-of-the-past-two-years-20250919-p5mwj6.html

You have to wonder when they will get their act together!

David.

The HILDA Survey Really Tells Us A Lot About Ourselves – Fascinating Stuff!

This appeared last week!

Australia news

Explainer

The Hilda survey reveals key insights into Australians’ lives. Here are five things we learned

From incomes and retirement to stress levels, the decades-long study provides snapshot of how we live our lives

Patrick Commins Economics editor

Fri 19 Sep 2025 01.00 AEST

Every year, thousands of Australians answer a series of questions as part of the long-running Hilda survey.

This questionnaire – more expansively known as the household, income and labour dynamics in Australia survey – has been tracking the same households since 2001.

As families have expanded over the two decades, it has grown to include about 16,000 people a year in 9,000 households, offering a unique longitudinal study of Australian life in the 21st century.

_{Sign up: AU Breaking News email}

The questions cover a broad range of topics, from health and wellbeing, to attitudes and values, to employment and income.

This week, the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, which manages the survey, released its annual statistical report.

Here are five things we learned.

Covid and household incomes

The report shows how a middle-income household earned more than $100,000 a year after tax for the first time in 2021, as the jobs market boomed and generous government Covid payments boosted household budgets.

But soaring prices and higher average tax rates sent median household disposable incomes backwards between 2021 and 2023 – although they remained higher than before the crisis.

The report also confirms how our real (or accounting for higher prices) incomes stagnated at about $95,000 through much of the 2010s – a period marked by low growth and low inflation after a decade of strong growth in household incomes in the 2000s.

More stressed

Despite incomes staying relatively high in 2023, there was plenty of evidence that many Australians were increasingly struggling to deal with the high cost of living, not least rising rents and the prices of other necessities.

One in eight people reported two or more indicators of financial stress in 2023 – the second-highest rate in nearly 20 years.

Stress indicators include not being able to pay utilities or mortgage or rent on time, skipping meals, being unable to heat the home, or having asked for financial help from friends, family or welfare organisations.

Hardest hit were single-parent households, where nearly one in three reported two or more financial indicators of stress in 2023, according to the Hilda survey.

That was the height of the cost of living pressures, so subsequent surveys will hopefully show less stressed households in 2024 and beyond.

We’re paying more for childcare

The average family is spending $171 a week on childcare, or nearly $100 more than two decades ago – and that’s after factoring in inflation.

Over a shorter timeframe, the picture looks more benign: we’re not spending more than a decade ago.

To better measure the financial burden of childcare, the Hilda survey shows families dedicated a median 6.3% of disposable household income to childcare in the latest figures, versus 4.5% in the early 2000s – a 40% increase.

What does it mean to be poor? The Australian government isn't sure – video

The report also shows that between 2005 and 2023, families increased their weekly use of paid care for the non-school age children by 7.7 hours, or about an extra day a week, from 18.5 hours to 26.2 hours.

Our reliance on grandparents for child-minding duties increased only slightly over the same period, from 10.5 hours a week, to 11.8 hours.

We want fewer children

Australia’s total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman will have in her lifetime, dropped to a record low of 1.5 in 2023 – down from 2.02 in 2008.

(A fertility rate of 2.1 is generally quoted as the number required to keep a population stable through natural growth.)

And there’s little evidence in the Hilda survey that fertility is about to pick back up.

Women on average said they wanted 2.35 kids in 2005, but by 2023 that number had dropped to 2.09.

Over the same timeframe, men’s “desired” number of children dropped from 2.22, to 1.99 – the first time it has reached below 2.

Inga Lass, a senior research fellow at the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, said two children has remained the most popular number of children over the past 20 years (even if statistically we are having fewer on average).

“But we’ve seen an increase in the numbers of people who said they wanted one child, or none at all,” Lass said.

So why do we want fewer kids?

“Potential parents are growing more concerned about their financial security and the costs of raising a child, and that pragmatism is outweighing the emotional side of the decision,” Lass said.

We’re retiring older

In 2003, 70% of women and 49% of men aged 60-64 were retired.

But by 2023, these figures had dropped to 40% and 27%, respectively, the survey showed.

Kyle Peyton, a co-author of the statistical report, said the shifts likely reflected a mix of economic and policy decisions.

“Back in 2003, the age pension eligibility was 62.5 years of age for women and 65 for men. By 2023, that had been increased to 67. That shift alone means many older Australians have needed to stay in the workforce longer, especially those who can’t afford to retire before becoming eligible for the pension,” Peyton said.

“At the same time, improvements in health at older ages mean that more people are physically able to keep working later in life.”

E https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/the-911-attack-was-a-clash-of-civilisations-two-decades-on-and-the-reality-is-ours-is-losing/news-story/dc0eb611984be202af319fae183239cdxplore more on these topics

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/19/the-unique-hilda-survey-reveals-key-insights-into-australians-lives-here-are-five-things-we-learned

This annual survey is a very useful tracker of a legion of social trends. Well worth careful study!

David.

It Is Hard To Believe This Is Anything Other Than Very Bad News!

 This appeared a little while ago…

Pentagon puts new restrictions on reporters in return for access

Antoine Gara

Sep 21, 2025 – 1.27pm

New York | The US Defence Department is demanding journalists pledge not to publish unauthorised information as a condition of their continued access to the Pentagon.

In a memo sent to news organisations on Friday (Saturday AEST), journalists were asked to agree that information related to the Pentagon “must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorising official before it is released, even if it is unclassified”, the memo said.

Peter Hegseth: “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon – the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. Wear a badge and follow the rules – or go home.” AP

Reporters refusing to sign the form will lose physical access to the headquarters of the department, which President Donald Trump is seeking to rename the Department of War.

The National Press Club said in a statement that independent reporting on the military was “essential to democracy”.

“It is what allows citizens to hold leaders accountable and ensures that decisions of war and peace are made in the light of day. This pledge undermines that principle, and the National Press Club calls on the Pentagon to rescind it immediately.”

The New York Times said in a statement that: “Asking independent journalists to submit to these kinds of restrictions is at stark odds with the constitutional protections of a free press in a democracy, and a continued attempt to throttle the public’s right to understand what their government is doing.”

The Pentagon. Reporters refusing to sign the form will lose physical access to the headquarters of the defence department.  AP

Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, described the Pentagon memo as “an ill-advised affront to free speech and freedom of the press”.

“This goes beyond attempting to suppress criticism – Mr Hegseth’s goal appears to be eliminating a critical check on government corruption, unlawful practices, and the misuse of taxpayer dollars.”

The Trump administration argues that the changes are meant to protect national security. “The guidelines in the memo provided to credentialled resident media at the Pentagon reaffirms the standards that are already in line with every other military base in the country,” said chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell.

“These are basic, commonsense guidelines to protect sensitive information as well as the protection of national security and the safety of all who work at the Pentagon.”

Defence secretary Pete Hegseth posted on X: “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon – the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. Wear a badge and follow the rules – or go home.”

The new guidance follows a series of measures that take aim at the media and Trump’s critics, amid concerns about a wider crackdown on free speech and dissent in the US.

Trump on Tuesday filed a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, seeking $US15 billion ($22.7 billion) in damages from the media organisation he accused of being a “mouthpiece” for the Democratic Party.

The suit, which was dismissed by a Federal court judge for being too long and lacking a plainly stated complaint, is the fourth big lawsuit Trump has filed against a major US news organisation since March 2024. The judge gave Trump 28 days to refile the latest suit.

Both ABC News and CBS News settled separate lawsuits by paying $US15 million to Trump’s future presidential library and another $US1 million to cover legal fees. In July, Trump sued The Wall Street Journal for $US10 billion after it published an article about a lewd birthday card he allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump has denied writing the card.

In April, Trump banned Associated Press reporters and photographers from the White House press pool and news conferences in the Oval Office after it refused to use “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico” in its reporting. In June, a DC Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld the Trump administration’s ban on the AP after a Federal court had earlier struck down the ban.

The administration was also accused of applying pressure to have Jimmy Kimmel’s television show cancelled over the late night host’s comments about assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Kimmel’s show was “indefinitely” suspended by ABC’s parent company Disney after Brendan Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission, called the comedian’s comments “the sickest conduct possible” and made what many interpreted as a threat.

“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said.

https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/pentagon-places-new-restrictions-on-reporters-in-return-for-access-20250921-p5mwpl

This seems way over the top to me. What do you think?

So much for “freedom of the press”

David.

It Is Amazing To Think It Is Almost A Quarter Of A Century Since This Horror Happened.

This appeared a few days ago:

The 9/11 attack was a clash of civilisations, two decades on and the reality is ours is losing

Whereas older voters generally remain more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, younger cohorts have swung the other way. Perhaps that’s because to Gen Z, September 11 is a faint memory.

Niall Ferguson

On the day of the attack, Niall Ferguson was in Oxford, staring incredulously at the pixelated live video of the World Trade Centre twin towers first blazing.

12:00 AM September 20, 2025.

Last week’s azure September skies over New York brought back memories. Twenty-four years ago I was due to give a lecture at New York University. The date of the lecture was September 12. I never flew.

On the day of the attacks, I sat in my study at Jesus College, Oxford, staring incredulously at the pixelated live video of the World Trade Centre twin towers first blazing, then collapsing. Not long after, in April 2002, I accepted a chair at the Stern School of Business at New York University and resigned my Oxford professorship.

My motivation was partly the hereditary Scottish tendency to march towards the sound of gunfire. As a teenager in 1914, my grandfather John Ferguson had volunteered to fight the Germans. This seemed easier.

Regardless of the 9/11 attackers’ motives, I had a strong objection to terrorism as a political method – a result of growing up in Glasgow in the 1970s, when “the Troubles” in nearby Northern Ireland did more than merely resonate.

My first impulse after the attacks, in a piece for The New York Times, was to liken the sympathetic British reaction to 9/11 to the American reaction to the Blitz of 1940-41.

A man stands in the rubble, and calls out asking if anyone needs help, after the collapse of the first World Trade Center Tower. Picture: Doug Kanter / AFP

But I also warned Americans to “steel themselves for a long, inglorious kind of war that governments in Europe already know only too well”. In wars against terrorists, I wrote, “there are no quick victories. The foe does not line up his tanks for you to flatten, his ships for you to sink. His troops live among you.”

Yet this was not the Provisional IRA. Re-reading a transcript of Osama bin Laden’s first post-9/11 video, from November 3, 2001, I am reminded of how explicitly he declared a war of religion. “People were divided into two parts” after 9/11, he declared. “The first part supported these strikes against US tyranny, while the second denounced them.

“The vast majority of the sons of the Islamic world were happy about these strikes,” bin Laden went on, “because they believe that the strikes were in reaction to the huge criminality practised by Israel and the United States in Palestine and other Muslim countries.”

Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden.

There were demonstrations of support for his action “from the farthest point in the eastern part of the Islamic world to the farthest point in the western part of the Islamic world”. This revealed the key reality: “This war is fundamentally religious. The people of the East are Muslims. They sympathised with Muslims against the people of the West, who are the crusaders.”

With the passage of 2½ decades, it is startling just how unambiguous bin Laden was about his religious motive. “Under no circumstances,” he declared, “should we forget this enmity between us and the infidels. For the enmity is based on creed … It is a question of faith, not a war against terrorism.” The goal of all Muslims should now be to “resist the most ferocious, serious and violent Crusade campaign against Islam ever since the message was revealed” to Mohammed.

Bin Laden saw the war he was waging as a counter-attack – “to take revenge for those innocent children in Palestine, Iraq, southern Sudan, Somalia, Kashmir and The Philippines”. The US president, George W. Bush, might be the latest “crusader”, who “carried the cross and raised its banner high”, but bin Laden traced his war back to the aftermath of World War I when “the whole Islamic world fell under the crusader banner … and Palestine was occupied by the British”. Now the tables had been turned. And he had turned them with just 19 men whose faith exalted martyrdom.

George W Bush standing next to retired firefighter Bob Beckwith, speaks to volunteers and firemen as he surveys the damage at the site of the World Trade Center in on September 14 2001. Picture: AFP

You can see why, at the time, many commentators saw 9/11 as vindicating Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington, whose seminal essay on The Clash of Civilisations had been published in 1993, as well as Princeton scholar Bernard Lewis, who had long argued that Islam was chronically unable to modernise.

My wife, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was born in Somalia and shared this view, not because she was a scholar of Islam but because she was a Muslim – and, indeed, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood. In September 2001, she was working at a political think tank in the Netherlands, having sought asylum there in 1992 to escape war-torn Mogadishu and an arranged marriage.

Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali

In her memoir, Infidel, she recalls how, after hearing bin Laden’s video, she “picked up the (Koran) and the hadith and started looking through them, to check. I hated to do it, because I knew that I would find bin Laden’s quotations in there.” She shot to notoriety by telling the Dutch that the 9/11 attackers were simply following the Prophet Mohammed’s injunction to wage holy war.

Over the past 24 years I have valiantly tried to see 9/11 differently – not as a civilisational clash between Islam and “the West” but as something that fit better into my own secular frame of reference. Raised an atheist, trained as an economic historian, I felt obliged to look behind what I took to be the facade of religious zealotry.

A decade after the attacks, in a piece I wrote for The New York Times Magazine, I portrayed them as the product of four underlying historical trends. First, the spread of terrorism from the Middle East and Europe to the US. Second, the post-2000 economic downturn, combined with widening inequality between nations and a coming oil shock, possibly compounded by a Saudi revolution akin to the one that overthrew the shah in Iran in 1979. (I completely failed to foresee the shale oil revolution and bought into the “peak oil” myth.) Third, the transition of American global power from informal to formal imperialism. And last, the fragmentation of the multicultural polity. (“Rather than anticipating a clash between monolithic civilisations, we should expect a continued process of political disintegration as religious and ethnic conflicts challenge the integrity of existing multicultural nation-states.”)

Missing in this – and in much of my work that followed – was Islam.

In The War of the World (2006), I got a little closer to Huntington, portraying 1979 as a much bigger turning point than 2001 in terms of the demographic as well as political rise of Islam, a point I returned to in Civilization: The West and the Rest (2011). However, laboriously quantifying every war since Huntington’s essay had appeared, I argued that most conflicts since 1993 had, in reality, been within rather than between civilisations. In The Square and the Tower (2017), I applied network theory to the problem, showing how al-Qaeda itself was a network within a much larger network of Islamist organisations; and that its expansion in response to the invasion of Iraq ultimately necessitated a networked response (in the form of General Stan McChrystal’s Joint Special Operations Command). Most recently, in Doom (2021), I downgraded 9/11 to just another disaster, and not a very big one: “In terms of excess mortality, April 2020 in New York City was … three and a half times worse than September 2001, the month of the 9/11 terrorist attack.”

00:12 / 05:45

‘Too dangerous’: Pro-Palestine mob hijacks Albanese’s office

On reflection, I see that I was overthinking the event. Or perhaps under-thinking it.

Huntington, Lewis and my wife were right.

In Huntington’s original formulation, “the fundamental source of conflict” in the world after the Cold War would be cultural; “the principal conflicts of global politics” would be “between nations and groups of different civilisations” – “Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, and possibly African”. In particular, Huntington predicted, the “centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam” could become “more virulent”. He also foresaw a “Confucian-Islamic military connection” that would culminate in a conflict between “The West and the Rest”.

Among the younger generation of proto-woke Ivy League professors, Huntington was widely mocked for his “essentialism”. But consider, with Huntington’s argument in mind, all that has happened since September 2001.

Terrorism has largely been contained in the US and EU, though not globally. In that sense, we won the “war on terror”, which was successfully displaced from the US to the periphery. It was ultimately defeated in Iraq, though not in Afghanistan. Today, as a result, terrorism in the world looks very different from what I foresaw in 2001. According to the Global Terrorism Index 2025, published by the Institute for Economics & Peace, the top five countries most impacted by terrorism last year were: Burkina Faso, Pakistan, Syria, Mali and Niger. Globally, terrorism peaked in 2014-15. In countries such as Iraq, it has declined dramatically. (In 2007, terrorists claimed 6249 lives in Iraq. Last year, the total was just 59.)

In the US, it is widely asserted, white supremacists now pose a bigger terrorist threat than Islamists – although the attack in New Orleans on January 1, 2025, when Shamsud-Din Jabbar killed 14 people by driving a pick-up truck into a crowd on Bourbon Street, is a reminder that Islamic State has not entirely gone away. We now know who murdered Charlie Kirk, and a white supremacist he was not.

Still, the latest Global Terrorism Threat Assessment by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies makes clear just how wrong I was in 2001 to anticipate a sustained campaign of jihadist terrorism in the US. Say what you like about our national security agencies, they won that war.

Yet nonviolent radicalisation (what Islam calls dawa as opposed to violent jihad) has advanced significantly everywhere in the Western world, wherever there are Muslim communities. The critical point – as my wife explained in a book on the subject – is that Islamism as a deeply illiberal political ideology does not need to engage in acts of terrorism to spread.

I never cease to marvel at the ingenuity with which the Muslim Brotherhood and other proselytising organisations spread their networks, through mosques, Islamic centres, schools, colleges and local politics. Consider only the effectiveness of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, founded in 1994, which today boasts on its website of having “100+ active lawsuits” and “600,000+ Legislative Action Alerts”, whatever that means. It has almost 30 offices throughout the country.

Most people who encounter CAIR take it to be something like the Anti-Defamation League for Muslims – a civil rights organisation that just happens to be concerned about the rights of Muslims. But it is not that at all.

Ten countries have recognised the non-existent Palestinian state since October 7, including three European Union EU member states, Ireland, Slovenia, and Spain. Canada, France, Australia and the United Kingdom Britain are itching to join them. Picture: AFP

Rather, it is more like a front organisation for the Muslim Brotherhood of America. In a recent article, Ayaan has brilliantly described the many ingenious ways that CAIR exploits the institutions of our open society, most recently settling a lawsuit to avoid revealing its sources of funding.

Good luck following the money. In her words: “The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) controls mosque properties and financial assets. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) lends the Brotherhood a degree of religious legitimacy. The American Muslim Council (AMC) works the political front, cutting deals and building alliances. The Muslim American Society (MAS) runs operations on the ground, embedding itself firmly in local communities. In universities, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) shapes the narrative. On campuses, the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) targets the next wave of recruits. The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and Young Muslims (YM) focus on families and youth.”

Even the United Arab Emirates has proscribed CAIR as a terrorist organisation. Yet dozens of Democratic legislators are on the record on the CAIR website, praising its work as they doubtless also praise the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

A complementary effort is the way Qatar – the largest source of foreign donations to US universities since reporting began in 1986 – funnels money into academia. According to the Network Contagion Research Institute, as reported in The Free Press, nearly a third of Qatari donations to American colleges – more than $US2bn – were given between 2021 and 2024. As Mitchell G. Bard shows in Arab Funding of American Universities (2025), this money is one of the reasons college campuses have become such hotbeds of anti-Semitism in recent years.

It is not just that the West has been successfully penetrated by an antagonistic civilisation that fundamentally rejects the fundamental division between religion and politics – church and state – that lies at the heart of both Christianity and Judaism. The West is also being geopolitically outmanoeuvred by “the rest” in just the way Huntington foresaw.

Former Hamas leaders Ismail Haniya and Yahya Sinwar wave during a rally marking the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Islamist movement in 2017. Picture: AFP

Contrast the global order after 9/11 with the global order today. We have come a long way since NATO secretary-general George Robertson’s statement on September 11, 2001: “Our message to the people of the United States is … ‘We are with you’.”

In the past three years, Zbig Brzezinski’s worst-case scenario has come about. “Potentially, the most dangerous scenario,” he wrote in The Grand Chessboard (1997), “would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances”.

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that grand coalition has come into being, with North Korea as a fourth member. The “axis of upheaval” (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea) is now co-operating in military, economic and diplomatic ways.

Moreover, the Trump administration’s combative treatment of US allies (the EU, Japan, South Korea) and neutrals (Brazil, India and Switzerland), not least with respect to trade policy, is alienating not only the traditionally non-aligned but also key partners.

The upshot is that Israel is now virtually alone in fighting against the Islamists, so that even the US wants plausible deniability when, as earlier this month, the Israeli Air Force strikes the leadership of Hamas in the Qatari capital, Doha.

The point is that the clash of civilisation continues. Now ask yourself: Who’s winning?

The Hamas attack on Israel two years ago was essentially an Israeli 9/11 (worse in relative terms). But compare the global reactions.

UN Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted unanimously on September 28, 2001, called on all member states to freeze terrorist financing, pass anti-terrorism laws, prevent suspected terrorists from travelling across international borders, and screen asylum-seekers for possible terrorist ties. This was an unprecedented show of international unity.

By contrast, no Security Council resolution could be passed in the wake of October 7. UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21 – which called for an “immediate” and “sustained” humanitarian truce and “cessation of hostilities” in Gaza and condemned “all acts of violence aimed at Palestinian and Israeli civilians” – was introduced by Jordan on behalf of a group of Arab states. When it was adopted on October 27, 2023, 121 voted in favour, 44 abstained, 14 absented themselves and only 14 (including Israel and the US) voted against.

This video grab from footage released by the Israeli Hostage and Missing Families Forum campaign group shows what the group described as Israeli female soldiers being captured by Hamas during the October 7 attack on Israel

Ten countries have recognised the non-existent Palestinian state since October 7, including three EU member states, Ireland, Slovenia, and Spain. Canada, France, Australia and Britain are itching to join them.

In short, comparing the world today with that of 24 years ago, I am tempted to say bin Laden lost the war on terror but is winning the clash of civilisations. That’s not to say his particular brand of Salafist jihadism is winning; it can even be argued that it’s in decline. Bin Laden’s creed was always too uncompromising to form alliances of convenience. By contrast, the pro-Palestinian “global intifada” is much more omnivorous, and can easily absorb the old left (Marxism and pan-Arabism) and the new (anti-globalism and wokeism).

Demographically, Islam is certainly winning. According to Pew Research (June 2025), “The number of Muslims around the world grew 21 per cent between 2010 and 2020, from 1.7 billion to 2.0 billion.” That was twice as fast as the rest of the world’s population, increasing the Muslim share from 24 per cent to 26 per cent. Earlier research by Pew (from 2015) forecast that “if current trends continue, by 2050 the number of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world”. In Europe, Pew estimated, Muslims would make up 10 per cent of the overall population, up from 5.9 per cent in 2010. In the US, Muslims would outnumber Jews. This does not seem implausible.

00:06 / 18:57

John Howard slams Albanese’s move to recognise Palestine as ‘political expediency’

Former prime minister John Howard joined Sky News host Sharri Markson to discuss a range of issues, including...

more

Already in Britain, Muhammad has overtaken Noah as the top name for baby boys in England and Wales, having been in the top 10 since 2016.

At the same time, Western civilisation today is so much more divided than it was 24 years ago. The public response to October 7 illuminated the divisions. Whereas older voters generally remain more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, younger cohorts have swung the other way. Perhaps that’s because to Gen Z, September 11 is a faint memory – as distant as the Cuban missile crisis and John F. Kennedy’s assassination were to my generation. But it’s also because the Islamists have done such a good job of co-opting the campus radicals, somehow overriding the cognitive dissonance in slogans such as “Queers for Palestine”, while tapping the anti-Semitism that still lurks on the far right.

According to Brookings, “young Republicans aged 18-49 have shifted from 35 per cent having an unfavourable view of Israel to 50 per cent unfavourable … Among Democrats, there has been an increase of 62 per cent to 71 per cent (with an unfavourable view of Israel) in the 18 to 49-year-old demographic … Only 9 per cent of those aged 18 to 34 approve of Israel’s military actions in Gaza.”

Supporters of Yemen's Houthi’s gather with pictures of Hamas' slain leader Yahya Sinwar during a rally last year. Picture: AFP

A recent poll in Britain by Campaign Against Anti-Semitism revealed a striking shift in attitudes towards Jews. Once again, the swing towards anti-Semitism is more pronounced among the young: “Forty-five per cent of the British public … believes that Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews … 60 per cent of young people believe this.

“Forty-nine per cent of 18-24-year-olds are uncomfortable spending time with people who openly support Israel.

“Only 31 per cent of young voters agree that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.

“Twenty-six per cent of the British public believes that Israel can get away with anything because its supporters control the media.

“Nineteen per cent of young people believe that the Hamas attack on Israel was justified.”

Such attitudes can be found in Britain on both the political left and the political right. A third of Labour voters say they are uncomfortable spending time with people who openly support Israel, as do 54 per cent of Green Party voters, 15 per cent of whom believe Hamas’s attack on Israel was justified. But almost one in four supporters of the rapidly growing Reform UK party, led by Nigel Farage, believe Jewish people “chase money more than other people do”.

During the Cold War, the West was often referred to as a “Judaeo-Christian” civilisation. That term is starting to seem like an anachronism. Two years ago, another bin Laden pronouncement – his Letter to America, originally published on the first anniversary of September 11 – enjoyed a sudden resurgence of interest, not least because its attacks on the power of American Jews seemed to strike a chord with young users of TikTok.

Palestinians celebrate their return after crossing the border fence with Israel on October 7, 2023. Picture: AFP

One popular video showed a young woman brushing her hair with the caption, “When you read Osama bin Laden’s letter to America and you realise you’ve been lied to your whole entire life.” At one point in November 2023, a TikTok search for #lettertoamerica found videos with 14.2 million views. In total, about 300 videos were posted under that hashtag.

Walking the streets of New York last week, I felt old. To my children, my students and my employees, September 11 is not a memory. It is not even a historical fact. It is something people argue about on social media.

As I write, Tucker Carlson has just told Piers Morgan that an “FBI document” indicated “an Israeli spy ring in the United States … knew 9/11 was coming”. The reality is, of course, that only the conspirators themselves knew that. They also knew, very clearly, why they were going to do it.

It has taken me all these years to understand that 9/11 really was a clash of civilisations. And it has taken me until now finally to face the reality that ours is losing.

Niall Ferguson is the Milbank Family senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a senior faculty fellow of the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. He is the author of 16 books, including The Pity of War, The House of Rothschild, and Kissinger, 1923-1968: The Idealist. This essay originally was published in The Free Press.

Here is the link:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/the-911-attack-was-a-clash-of-civilisations-two-decades-on-and-the-reality-is-ours-is-losing/news-story/dc0eb611984be202af319fae183239cd

Hard to believe so many years have passed and sadly not much seems to have changed for the better….

We seem to be rather slow learners as a group! I am not sure great progress has been made which is rather sad!

David.