Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Theresa Larkin, Associate Professor of Medical Sciences, University of Wollongong

Most of us can hold our breath for between 30 and 90 seconds.

A few minutes without oxygen can be fatal, so we have an involuntary reflex to breathe.

But freediver Vitomir Maričić recently held his breath for a new world record of 29 minutes and three seconds, lying on the bottom of a 3-metre-deep pool in Croatia.

This is about five minutes longer than the previous world record set in 2021 by another Croatian freediver, Budimir Šobat.

Interestingly, all world records for breath holds are by freedivers, who are essentially professional breath-holders.
They do extensive physical and mental training to hold their breath under water for long periods of time.

So how do freedivers delay a basic human survival response and how was Maričić able to hold his breath about 60 times longer than most people?

Increased lung volumes and oxygen storage

Freedivers do cardiovascular training – physical activity that increases your heart rate, breathing and overall blood flow for a sustained period – and breathwork to increase how much air (and therefore oxygen) they can store in their lungs.

This includes exercise such as swimming, jogging or cycling, and training their diaphragm, the main muscle of breathing.

Diaphragmatic breathing and cardiovascular exercise train the lungs to expand to a larger volume and hold more air.

This means the lungs can store more oxygen and sustain a longer breath hold.

Freedivers can also control their diaphragm and throat muscles to move the stored oxygen from their lungs to their airways. This maximises oxygen uptake into the blood to travel to other parts of the body.

To increase the oxygen in his lungs even more before his world record breath-hold, Maričić inhaled pure (100%) oxygen for ten minutes.

This gave Maričić a larger store of oxygen than if he breathed normal air, which is only about 21% oxygen.

This is classified as an oxygen-assisted breath-hold in the Guiness Book of World Records.

Even without extra pure oxygen, Maričić can hold his breath for 10 minutes and 8 seconds.

Resisting the reflex to take another breath

Oxygen is essential for all our cells to function and survive. But it is high carbon dioxide, not low oxygen that causes the involuntary reflex to breathe.

When cells use oxygen, they produce carbon dioxide, a damaging waste product.

Carbon dioxide can only be removed from our body by breathing it out.

When we hold our breath, the brain senses the build-up in carbon dioxide and triggers us to breathe again.

Freedivers practice holding their breath to desensitise their brains to high carbon dioxide and eventually low oxygen. This delays the involuntary reflex to breathe again.

When someone holds their breath beyond this, they reach a “physiological break-point”. This is when their diaphragm involuntarily contracts to force a breath.

This is physically challenging and only elite freedivers who have learnt to control their diaphragm can continue to hold their breath past this point.

Indeed, Maričić said that holding his breath longer:

got worse and worse physically, especially for my diaphragm, because of the contractions. But mentally I knew I wasn’t going to give up.

Mental focus and control is essential

Those who freedive believe it is not only physical but also a mental discipline.

Freedivers train to manage fear and anxiety and maintain a calm mental state. They practice relaxation techniques such as meditation, breath awareness and mindfulness.

Interestingly, Maričić said:

after the 20-minute mark, everything became easier, at least mentally.

Reduced mental and physical activity, reflected in a very low heart rate, reduces how much oxygen is needed. This makes the stored oxygen last longer.

That is why Maričić achieved this record lying still on the bottom of a pool.

Don’t try this at home

Beyond competitive breath-hold sports, many other people train to hold their breath for recreational hunting and gathering.

For example, ama divers who collect pearls in Japan, and Haenyeo divers from South Korea who harvest seafood.

But there are risks of breath holding.

Maričić described his world record as:

a very advanced stunt done after years of professional training and should not be attempted without proper guidance and safety.

Indeed, both high carbon dioxide and a lack of oxygen can quickly lead to loss of consciousness.

Breathing in pure oxygen can cause acute oxygen toxicity due to free radicals, which are highly reactive chemicals that can damage cells.

Unless you’re trained in breath holding, it’s best to leave this to the professionals.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The science behind a freediver’s 29-minute breath hold world record – https://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-a-freedivers-29-minute-breath-hold-world-record-264020

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Meredith Oyen, Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

World War II casts a very long shadow in East Asia. Eighty years after ending with Japan’s surrender to Allied forces on Sept. 2, 1945, the conflict continues to stir debate over the past, in the context of today’s geopolitical tensions.

China’s high-profile military parade commemorating the conclusion of what Beijing calls the “War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression” is a case in point.

In the run-up to the Sept. 3, 2025, event, the Chinese Communist Party has been criticized in Tokyo for stoking anti-Japanese sentiment and in the U.S. for downplaying America’s role while playing up Russia’s.

But as an expert on Taiwan-China relations, I’m interested in the battle over the narrative between Taipei and Beijing. During World War II, China’s communists and nationalists became uneasy internal allies, putting their civil war on pause to unite against Japan. Afterward, the communists prevailed and the nationalists fled to Taiwan, where they set up their own government – one the mainland has never recognized. Months of bickering over the commemorations shine a light on how both sides view their respective roles in defeating Japan – and what the show of military force by Beijing signals today.

To whom did Japan surrender?

A peculiarity of the current commemorations is that Japan did not actually surrender to Communist China, or technically to China at all. On Sept. 9, 1945, a week after agreeing to the terms laid out by the Allied forces, Japan, at a ceremony in Nanjing, formally surrendered to China’s National Revolutionary Army – the military wing of the nationalist Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-shek.

And this gets to the heart of why many in Taiwan – where the nationalists fled at the conclusion of China’s civil war in 1949 – are unhappy with Beijing’s projection of Communist China as the victors against Japan.

By the time that war in East Asia took hold, in 1937, China was a decade into its own civil war between the nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong’s communists.

The nationalists and communists fell into an uneasy truce with the creation of the second united front in 1937. But the role of both sides in fighting the Japanese has long been the source of disagreement.

The nationalist army bore the brunt of conventional warfare. But it was criticized for being disorganized and too dependent on men forced into service. Those soldiers were often ill-trained and underfed.

To the communists, the army – and its failings – were the product of the corrupt government under Chiang. And it was largely responsible for China’s inept response to Japan’s initial advances.

In Beijing’s telling today, it was the communist forces, which relied more on guerrilla tactics, that helped push back the Japanese.

Conversely, the nationalists cast events during World War II very differently. China’s nationalist administration under Chiang was the first government in the world to fight a fascist power.

For eight or even 14 years, depending on whether you date the start of the conflict to 1937 or 1931, the nationalist army fought hard and sacrificed a lot as it put up the bulk of the resistance against Japan. To Taiwan’s Chinese nationalists, the Chinese communist contribution was minimal.

Worse, to them, the communists took the opportunity of Japan’s invasion to further their own position against the nationalists. Indeed, when the civil war began again after Japan’s defeat, Mao’s communists had the upper hand, leading to the nationalists’ retreat to Taiwan four years later.

From Japanese to Chinese rule

The status of Taiwan at the end of World War II presents another wrinkle.
By then, the island had been under Japanese colonial control since 1895. Indeed, a second surrender ceremony took place on Oct. 25, 1945, when the Japanese forces in Taiwan surrendered to a nationalist official who had come over from the mainland.

What followed was a period of Chinese nationalist takeover of Taiwan and a corresponding Japanese retreat – it took several years for all Japanese officials and families to be repatriated to Japan.

Meanwhile, the nationalist Kuomintang that came into Taiwan were not terribly well received by the local population, many of whom were hoping for independence and resisted a Chinese nationalist, authoritarian takeover.

Complicating matters was that a 1943 agreement between the leaders of the Allied nations in Cairo declared that in the event of Japan’s defeat, Formosa, as Taiwan was then called, would be returned to the Republic of China.

But now you had two claimants to being “China” – the communists on the mainland and the nationalists on Taiwan. Either way, the Cairo Declaration served the interests of the “One-China” principle – under which both Beijing and Taipei view Taiwan as part of unified China, but differ over which is the country’s legitimate government – over that of those seeking the island’s formal independence from the mainland.

From the past to the future

The conflicting war narratives from Communist China, pro-unification nationalists in Taiwan and those seeking the island’s independence have been present since the end of World War II – and they tend to flare up around commemorations and anniversaries.

They did so, for example, when China held a big military celebration in 2015 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Japan’s surrender.

This year’s event seeks to do a couple of things. First, Beijing is using it to reshape the memory of the Chinese Communist Party’s role in the world as a result of World War II.

The war is seen as a critical moment in Chinese history – not just in the context of defeating Japan and its role in the subsequent founding of the People’s Republic, but because in Asia it marked the end of the colonial era. During the war, foreign powers in China gave up their concessions and ended a century of partial colonial control over port cities such as Shanghai.

The war also marked China’s emergence as a major player on the world scene. As a result of its contributions in World War II, China gained a role on the United Nations Security Council. The Republic of China on Taiwan maintained that seat and that vote until 1971, when U.N. recognition finally shifted to the People’s Republic of China.

In recent years, promoting a prominent role in defeating fascism and shaping the postwar world order has been particularly important as China looks to carve out a space for itself in a multipolar world and show an alternative to a world dominated by the United States and Western Europe.

For these reasons, Beijing is keen to keep focus on its preferred narrative, highlighting communist contributions to the war effort.

But given Beijing’s adherence to the one-party principle, Taiwan – as part of China – could not be ignored. So, invites to Taiwanese officials to the commemorative events were sent out.

Representatives from the pro-independence ruling Democratic People’s Party and the main opposition party, the pro-unification Kuomintang, have largely declined to attend. The executive government has said that no current government officials in Taiwan should attend the military parade. Nonetheless, on Sept. 2, former Kuomintang chairperson Hung Hsiu-chu announced that she would be in Beijing for the event.

For its part, Taiwan has opted for more low-key commemorations of the end of Japanese rule of the island.

Many Taiwanese are much more concerned about current events than those of 80 years ago. The anniversary comes at a time of increased tension across the Taiwan Strait. Echoing concern over Chinese military might and potential intent, earlier this year “Zero Day Attack” – a new series depicting a future, fictionalized invasion of the island by the People’s Republic of China – dropped and has since become hugely popular.

Its streaming launch date in Japan was Aug. 15 – the 80th anniversary of the announcement of Japan’s surrender in World War II.

This article is based on a conversation between Meredith Oyen and Gemma Ware for The Conversation Weekly podcast that will be available later this week. Subscribe to The Conversation Weekly podcast.

Meredith Oyen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. China’s WWII anniversary parade rekindles cross-strait battle over war narrative − and fears in Taiwan of future conflict – https://theconversation.com/chinas-wwii-anniversary-parade-rekindles-cross-strait-battle-over-war-narrative-and-fears-in-taiwan-of-future-conflict-264401

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ger Post, Lecturer Neuroscience, PhD student collaborative reasoning, The University of Melbourne

With the AFL finals approaching, discussions about the league’s clutch players – those who excel under pressure – will soon appear in the media and be debated among fans.

Last year, Gold Coast captain Noah Anderson was ranked highest in a list of AFL clutch players, followed by more established names including the Western Bulldogs’ Tom Liberatore and Geelong’s Patrick Dangerfield.

But what does clutch really mean and is it possible for athletes to be “clutch”?

The power of labels and narratives

While most people struggle when the pressure rises – they may even “choke”, where they lose the ability to perform a skill in front of an audience – clutch players seem to excel in these circumstances.

They thrive when the heat is on and seem to save something special for these moments.

The label of being a clutch player is often shaped by stereotypical narratives of, as some media commentary has put it, “hardened, stubborn men” who will “take themselves to the next level through sheer guts and an iron will”.

In 2018, former Port Adelaide great and outspoken media pundit Kane Cornes earmarked Bulldogs champion Marcus Bontempelli as a clutch player:

The one player who I want with the ball in their hands, when the game is on the line is “The Bont”. For me, Marcus Bontempelli, is right now the best clutch performer in the competition.

More recently, Carlton’s Blake Acres was described as “intense, desperate and completely unwilling to give an inch” in the finals:

Acres was the big moment player, full of desperation, intensity and a relentless attack on the ball.

But are these players really clutch?

Blindspots and biases

These character sketches and rankings of clutch players mask many blind spots and biases in how the data are compiled and interpreted.

For example, the data tend to favour players who generate impact with eye-catching and easily measurable actions (such as Bontempelli, who often brilliantly takes marks and kicks goals) while undervaluing those who do the less glamorous grunt work that helps the rest of the team (such as Liberatore, who plays a more selfless role).

More importantly, the data don’t reflect whether a player actually improves under pressure (the definition of clutch).

In the case of Anderson, is he indeed performing better than others in the final quarters of tight games? Or is he just more talented than others and ranks higher in all quarters of games?

Or maybe he is better in the first three quarters of the game and then declines in the fourth quarter – yet he is he still better than the rest?

We don’t know solely from assessing his performances in final quarters.

Studies from other team sports including basketball, soccer and baseball cannot definitely prove players excel under pressure.

No one saves something special for when it’s needed most.

It seems more likely that clutch performances simply stick in our memories: game-deciding moments are more memorable than efforts that fail to seal victory.

There could be other reasons, too.

The power of opportunity

Statistics from many sports show even if athletes are involved in more goals or baskets when the game is on the line, it doesn’t necessarily mean they excel in these moments.

When late-game performances by basketball legends including LeBron James and Kobe Bryant were analysed, another option surfaced: clutch performers seem to be doing more instead of better in the last minutes of tight games.

Their scoring accuracy doesn’t improve in these moments (they miss, on average, just as much as most players) but they do get more scoring opportunities.

These opportunities are created by many involved, not in the least the teammates who pass the ball to the clutch player.

These teammates often follow the instructions from their coaches to get the clutch player in scoring position in the dying seconds.

Opponents can, unintentionally, assist by making more fouls on clutch players when the heat is on, giving them more free throws to seal the victory.

Finally, there are fans and pundits who label these players as the ones who should decide the game.

So to get more opportunities to decide a match, an athlete needs to build a reputation that they will take themselves “to the next level” when it matters most. Tattooing “CHOSEN1” on your back might help build these reputations, as LeBron James did.

Even better is when others talk about your confidence, hunger for victories, or hardened, stubborn competitiveness. This signals to fans, teammates and coaches that you are the one who should be getting the ball to decide the game.

More opportunities means more game-winning shots, which reinforces the idea you are a clutch player.

Being listed as one of the most clutch players of the competition might be the best assist an athlete can get to decide a final.

Ger Post does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. So-called ‘clutch’ athletes might be more hype than nerveless match-winners – https://theconversation.com/so-called-clutch-athletes-might-be-more-hype-than-nerveless-match-winners-263111

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Clare Collins, Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

If you follow wellness content on social media or in the news, you’ve probably heard that processed food is not just unhealthy, but can cause serious harm.

Eating a diet dominated by highly processed foods means you’re likely to consume more kilojoules than you need, and greater amounts of salt, sugar – as well as food additives.

But not all processed foods are equal, nor bad for you. Here’s what to look out for on food labels if you want to buy processed, but convenient, foods.

What do the processing categories mean?

Researchers use the Nova processed food classification system to group foods into four processing levels.

Group 1: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods are either in their natural state or have minimal processing. They’re basic foods you could eat straight away, such as vegetables and fruit, or foods that only need minimal processing to make them safe and palatable, such as eggs, meat, poultry, fish, oats, other grains, plain pasta, legumes, milk, plain yoghurt, ground herbs and spices, or nuts with shells.

Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients are derived from group 1. These are used in cooking to enhance flavour and texture, and include oils, sugar and honey.

Group 3: Processed foods are treated using traditional processing methods such as canning, bottling, fermenting, or salting to extend shelf life. These include canned fruits, tomato paste, cheese, salted fish, and breads with minimal ingredients. You could make these foods in a home kitchen.

Group 4: Ultra-processed foods are industrially produced with ingredients and additives not normally found in home kitchens, and have little, if any, group 1 items left intact. These foods are engineered to be hyper-palatable, meaning you can’t stop eating them, and have long shelf lives. Products include factory-made biscuits, snack foods, instant meals, frozen desserts, preserved meats, instant noodles, margarine, some breakfast cereals and sugar-sweetened drinks.

However, group 4 products vary greatly in their nutritional quality and the number and type of food additives used to manufacture them.

What’s the concern about eating lots of ultra-processed foods?

About 42% of Australians’ total energy intake comes from ultra-processed foods. These are relatively cheap and are energy-dense, but nutrient-poor. This means they can contain a lot of kilojules, salt and added sugars but are poor sources of nutrients the body needs such as vitamins, minerals and dietary fibre.

Studies have linked higher intakes of ultra-processed foods with poorer diet quality and worse health outcomes. A review of 122 observational studies found people with the highest intakes (compared with the lowest) were about 25% more likely to have had a decline in kidney function. They were 20% more likely to be overweight, or have obesity or diabetes, and were 40% more likely to have common mental health conditions such as depression.

However, a recent review highlighted that the health impact of these foods and drinks varies depending on their category. Products such as sugar-sweetened drinks can negatively affect health, while others – such as cereals with added vitamins and minerals and some dairy products – can be neutral or even protective.

Some level of food processing can improve food safety, extend shelf life and reduce food waste. This is likely to include the use of additives, such as emulsifiers, flavour enhancers, preservatives, food acids, colours and raising agents. Additives need to be approved by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) after a safety assessment, with the lowest amount added to achieve the specific purpose in the food product.

However, some adults and children eat a lot of ultra-processed foods. This means they have high intakes of food additives, in terms of total amount and different types.

Researchers have raised concerns about a potential link between high intakes and increased risks of some health conditions, ranging from mental health disorders to heart disease and metabolic disorders such as diabetes. The researchers called for transparent use of evidence to ensure public health messaging is kept up to date.

An observational study in more than 100,000 French adults also raised concerns about potential “cocktail” effects of food additive combinations. Although more research is needed, they found some additive combinations were associated with a higher risk for developing type 2 diabetes.

Finally, a recent review highlighted the potential for additives, particularly emulsifiers, to damage the gut lining and alter the balance of healthy versus unhealthy gut microbes. This could potentially increase the risk of developing inflammatory bowel conditions.

What processed foods should you choose?

It depends on how they’re made, the additives used, how often you eat them, and how much you have.

When choosing processed foods:

1. Read the ingredient list on the food label. It tells you a lot about the level of processing and additives used. Look for products that contain minimal to no additives, and ingredients that could be found in a home kitchen. Note that additives could be listed by name or number.

2. If there are a number of products in the same category, choose the one with more Health Stars as it will contain less salt, saturated fat and added sugars, compared to products with fewer Health Stars.

3. Think about how often you eat the product. If you do eat it weekly or more often, spend more time comparing products before making a final choice.

While you might expect all Nova 3 processed foods to be healthier than Nova group 4 (ultra-processed), this isn’t always the case. Nova group 3 items don’t necessarily meet the nutrient criteria that deems them “healthy”. They could still contain excessive amounts of added salt, saturated fat or sugars.

For help to review the level of processing alongside the nutrient criteria, consider using an app such as Open Food Facts. This assigns food products a Nova group score, a nutrition score, and another to rate its impact on the environment.

---

Read more:
Ultra-processed foods might not be the real villain in our diets – here’s what our research found

---

Clare Collins AO is a Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics at the University of Newcastle, NSW and a Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI) affiliated researcher. She is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Leadership Fellow and has received research grants from NHMRC, ARC, MRFF, HMRI, Diabetes Australia, Heart Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, nib foundation, Rijk Zwaan Australia, WA Dept. Health, Meat and Livestock Australia, and Greater Charitable Foundation. She has consulted to SHINE Australia, Novo Nordisk, Quality Bakers, the Sax Institute, Dietitians Australia and the ABC. She was a team member conducting systematic reviews to inform the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines update, the Heart Foundation evidence reviews on meat and dietary patterns and was Co-Chair of the Guidelines Development Advisory Committee for Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treatment of Obesity 2025.

– ref. Not all processed foods are bad for you. Here’s what you can tell from reading the label – https://theconversation.com/not-all-processed-foods-are-bad-for-you-heres-what-you-can-tell-from-reading-the-label-260818

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Lucia McCallum, Senior Scientist in Geodesy, University of Tasmania

On Sunday, a plane carrying European Union chief Ursula von der Leyen was reportedly forced to land in Bulgaria using paper maps after its GPS navigation systems were jammed. Bulgarian authorities claim the jamming was deliberate Russian interference, though a Kremlin spokesperson told the Financial Times this was “incorrect”.

GPS interference is on the rise, so you might be wondering how it works. And can anything be done about it? And – perhaps most importantly – do you need to worry?

How does GPS jamming work?

The Global Positioning System (GPS) and other satellite navigation systems use radio signals from satellites to calculate position. To determine position, a GPS needs a direct line of sight to at least four satellites.

There are two ways to disrupt satellite navigation.

The first is jamming. This works by simply broadcasting high-intensity radio noise in the same frequency band used by the navigation satellites.

Jamming drowns out the satellite signal, like a person shouting loudly in your ear stops you hearing what someone is saying on the other side of the room. This appears to be what happened in Bulgaria.

The second way to interfere with satellite navigation is called spoofing, and it’s a little more elegant. Spoofing involves sending radio signals that pretend to be coming from the navigation satellites.

Where jamming stops the satellite navigation system from producing any location, spoofing tricks it into giving a false location – with potentially catastrophic results.

Are jamming and spoofing becoming more common?

Jamming and spoofing do appear to be growing more common, especially in conflict zones in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

A clandestine Russian base near the Polish border is reportedly responsible for satnav interference in the Baltic region.

Ships in the Red Sea report frequent interference, likely from Houthi rebels in Yemen.

These increasingly common incidents highlight how vulnerable our reliance on satellite navigation makes us.

What can be done about interference?

The best response to interference is to have backup navigation options in place. The US-run GPS is the best known and most commonly used satellite navigation system, but there are others.

The EU runs a parallel system called Galileo, while Russia has one called GLONASS and China operates its own BeiDou satellites.

Each of these systems operates using slightly different radio frequencies. Some navigation systems can tune in to more than one set of satellites – so even if one is jammed, others may be available.

Galileo also has a “safety of life” feature, which allows users to detect spoofing. Australia’s in-development SouthPAN system will also offer a similar feature.

Another common feature of navigation systems is inertial sensing. This relies on sensors such as gyroscopes and barometers to directly detect movement and calculate position.

Most car navigation systems use inertial sensors to track location in cities or tunnels where there is no direct line of sight to satellites. Inertial sensing works well for short periods of time, but quickly becomes inaccurate and needs to be recalibrated by checking in with satellite systems.

Many researchers around the world are trying to develop new alternatives to satellite navigation using extremely precise sensors. One recent development uses tiny fluctuations in Earth’s magnetic field to detect position, for example.

---

Read more:
Quantum navigation could transform how we travel. So what is it, and how does it work?

---

Should you be worried about flying?

Everyday air passengers have no need to worry about jamming or spoofing. For one thing, it’s very rare – especially outside conflict zones.

For another, the aviation industry is highly regulated and extremely safe. Even where satellite navigation doesn’t work, there are backup options.

What all of us can take away from this latest incident is how dependent we have become on satellite navigation. What matters is that we have a diverse range of systems so we are not dependent on just one.

Lucia McCallum does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Russia’s GPS interference: do I need to worry when flying? – https://theconversation.com/russias-gps-interference-do-i-need-to-worry-when-flying-264334

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Callum Jones, Associate research fellow, Deakin University

Over the weekend, rallies were staged across various Australian cities under the branding “March for Australia”. The rallies, which were attended by avowed neo-Nazis and elected politicians alike, called for an end to mass migration.

These protests are not unique to Australia. Recently, the United Kingdom has seen its own wave of anti-migrant demonstrations in cities such as London, Bristol and Birmingham.

Despite claims by some that the Australian rallies were “hijacked” by the neo-Nazi National Socialist Network (NSN), they were deeply rooted in the far-right, white nationalist ideas of “remigration” and the Great Replacement theory.

An ABC investigation in the lead-up to the rallies found that “remigration” was listed on the organisers’ website as a key reason for marching, before later being deleted.

Significantly, the March for Australia rallies also received high-profile, online support from far-right figures overseas, including Alex Jones, Tommy Robinson, Jack Posobiec and Elon Musk.

Musk retweeted a post erroneously claiming 150,000 people took part in the rallies, while Jones retweeted a post claiming a crowd size of half a million.

For the rally organisers, public support from figures such as these greatly expands the reach of their message, and repositions them from isolated fringe events to vital parts of a global anti-immigration movement.

This is not the first time Musk has inserted himself in the domestic politics of a foreign country to bolster the far right. The tech billionaire notably gave his support to Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany party in recent elections, describing it as the “best hope”“ for the country.

In recent days, he also posted the phrase ”remigration is the only way“ in response to a post about foreigners in the UK.

Remigration refers to the mass deportation of non-white immigrants to their so-called countries of origin.

It is an ideological cornerstone of ”identitarianism“, a European far-right movement centred on preserving white European identities. These are perceived to be under attack by immigration, globalisation and multiculturalism.

Global growth of the far right

This online support for March for Australia underscores the growing transnational links among far-right movements.

These movements increasingly see themselves as united by shared concerns over the defence of so-called “Western Civilisation”, opposition to mass immigration, the preservation of white identity, and beliefs in conspiratorial narratives such as the Great Replacement theory.

And this transnational growth wouldn’t be possible without the proliferation of social media in recent years.

In Australia, for example, research shows how “indispensable” mainstream social media platforms have been in the development of anti-Islamic far-right movements such as the United Patriots Front, going back to the 2010s.

The far right also capitalises on virality and humour to extend the dissemination of their ideology online. In particular, this is done through memes.

Research has found, for example, that one particularly prominent transnational far-right meme, Pepe the Frog, has been localised for an Australian audience through the addition of a Ned Kelly mask.

Research also shows how international slogans travel across borders. US President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” mantra, for instance, has been adapted into a distinctly local form for Australians: “Make Australia Grouse Again”.

The online space makes it easier for extreme views and rhetoric to permeate into mainstream political discourse, as well.

When elements of the far right get removed from mainstream social media platforms— a process known as “deplatforming” — they often find a new home on alternative platforms such as Telegram. Research shows they now host a range of Australian neo-Nazi groups.

It’s noteworthy that many of the key figures lending support for March for Australia, including Robinson and Jones, were previously deplatformed from Twitter before Musk acquired the company and reinstated them.

Social media has also allowed neo-Nazis such as Tom Sewell, who is essentially persona non grata in Australian mainstream media, to build a large and highly influential profile among international far-right audiences.

With Musk’s vows to defend “free speech” on X, and Mark Zuckerberg’s dramatic shift in Meta’s approach to content moderation, the mainstream social media environment is becoming even more hospitable to far-right movements. This is a worrying trend.

For the Australian far right, the support of figures such as Musk and Robinson signals an opportunity to increase their mobilising potential. It could also lead to the transnational exchange of information, resources and tactical support.

As the far right becomes increasingly emboldened, mainstreamed and normalised, we should expect to see more public and increasingly violent demonstrations across Australian cities – and support for these among a global audience online.

Kurt Sengul has received funding from the NSW Government’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) and Social Cohesion Research Program.

Callum Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How Australia’s anti-immigration rallies were amplified online by the global far right – https://theconversation.com/how-australias-anti-immigration-rallies-were-amplified-online-by-the-global-far-right-264269

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jennifer Medbury, Lecturer in Intelligence and Security, Edith Cowan University

Cyber crime group ShinyHunters has received global attention after Google urged 2.5 billion users to tighten their security following a data breach via Salesforce, a customer management platform.

Unlike data breaches where hackers directly break into databases holding valuable information, ShinyHunters – and several other groups – have recently targeted major companies through voice-based social engineering (also known as “vishing”, short for voice phishing).

Social engineering is when a person is tricked or manipulated into providing information or performing actions that they wouldn’t normally do.

In this case, to get access to protected systems, a criminal would pose as a member of the target company’s IT helpdesk and convince an employee to share passwords and/or multi-factor authentication codes. Although vishing is not a new tactic, the use of deepfakes and generative artificial intelligence to clone voices is making this type of social engineering harder to detect.

Just this year, companies such as Qantas, Pandora, Adidas, Chanel, Tiffany & Co. and Cisco have all been targeted using similar tactics, with millions of users affected.

Who, or what, are ShinyHunters?

ShinyHunters first emerged in 2020 and claims to have successfully attacked 91 victims so far. The group is primarily after money, but has also been willing to cause reputational damage to their victims. In 2021, ShinyHunters announced they were selling data stolen from 73 million AT&T customers.

ShinyHunters has previously targeted companies through vulnerabilities within cloud applications and website databases. By targeting customer management providers such as Salesforce, cyber criminals can gain access to rich data sets from multiple clients in one attack.

The use of social engineering techniques is considered a relatively new tactic for ShinyHunters. This change in approach has been attributed to their links with other similar groups.

In mid-August, ShinyHunters posted on Telegram they have been working with known threat actors Scattered Spider and Lapsus$ to target companies such as Salesforce and Allianz Life. The channel was taken down by Telegram within days of being launched. The group publicly released Allianz Life’s Salesforce data, which included 2.8 million data records relating to individual customers and corporate partners.

Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters, the newly rebranded group, recently advertised they had started providing ransomware as a service. This means they will launch ransomware attacks on behalf of other groups willing to pay them.

They claim their service is better than what’s being offered by other cyber crime groups such as LockBit and Dragonforce. Rather than negotiating directly with victims, the group often publishes public extortion messages.

Who are all these cyber criminals? There’s likely a significant overlap of membership between ShinyHunters, Scattered Spider and Lapsus$. All these groups are international, with members operating on the dark web from various parts of the world.

Adding to the confusion, each group is known by multiple names. For example, Scattered Spider has been known as UNC3944, Scatter Swine, Oktapus, Octo Tempest, Storm-0875 and Muddled Libra.

How can we protect ourselves from vishing?

As everyday users and customers of large tech companies, there’s little we can do in the face of organised cyber crime groups. Keeping yourself personally safe from scams means staying constantly vigilant.

Social engineering tactics can be highly effective because they prey on human emotions and the desire to trust and to be helpful.

But companies can also be proactive about reducing the risk of being targeted by vishing tactics.

Organisations can build awareness of these tactics and build scenario-based training into employee education programs. They can also use additional verification methods, such as on-camera checks where an employee shows a corporate badge or government-issued ID, or by asking questions that cannot easily be answered with information found online.

Finally, organisations can strengthen security by using authenticator apps that require phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication such as number matching or geo-verification. Number matching requires a person to enter numbers from the identity platform into the authenticator app to
approve the authentication request. Geo-verification uses a person’s physical location as an additional authentication factor.

Jennifer Medbury does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What are ShinyHunters, the hackers that attacked Google? Should we all be worried? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-shinyhunters-the-hackers-that-attacked-google-should-we-all-be-worried-264271

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Margaret Murray, Senior Lecturer, Nutrition, Swinburne University of Technology

The hype around protein intake doesn’t seem to be going away.

Social media is full of people urging you to eat more protein, including via supplements such as protein shakes. Food companies have also started highlighting protein content on food packages to promote sales.

But is all the extra protein giving us any benefit – and can you have too much protein?

Protein’s important – but many eat more than they need

Eating enough protein is important. It helps form muscle tissue, enzymes and hormones and it plays a role in immune function. It can also give you energy.

Australia’s healthy eating guidelines, penned by experts and backed by government, recommend we get 15–25% of our daily energy needs from protein.

The recommended daily intake of protein for adults is 0.84 grams per kilogram of body weight for men and 0.75 grams per kilogram of body weight for women

This is about 76 grams per day for a 90 kilogram man or 53 grams per day for a 70 kilogram woman. (It’s a bit more if you’re over 70 or a child, though).

Most Australian adults are already eating plenty of protein.

Even so, many people still go out of their way to add even more protein to their diet.

For people working to increase muscle mass through resistance training, such as lifting weights, a protein intake up to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day (that’s 144 grams a day for a 90 kilogram person) can help with increasing muscle strength and size.

But research shows there is no additional muscle gain benefit from eating any more than that.

For most of us, there’s no benefit in consuming protein above the recommended level.

In fact, having too much protein can cause problems.

What happens when I eat too much protein?

Excess protein is not all simply excreted from the body in urine or faeces. It stays in the body and has various effects.

Protein is a source of energy, so eating more protein means taking in more energy.

When we consume more energy than we need, our body converts any excess into fatty tissue for storage.

There are some health conditions where excess protein intake should be avoided. For example, people with chronic kidney disease should closely monitor their protein intake, under the supervision of a dietitian, to avoid damage to the kidneys.

There is also a condition called protein poisoning, which is where you eat too many proteins without getting enough fats, carbohydrates and other nutrients.

It’s also known as “rabbit starvation”, a term often linked to early 20th century explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, in reference to the fact that those who subsisted on a diet of mainly rabbits (which are famously lean) quickly fell dangerously ill.

Where you get your protein from matters

We can get protein in our diets from plant sources (such as beans, lentils, wholegrains) and animal sources (such as eggs, dairy, meat or fish).

A high intake of protein from animal sources has been associated with an increased risk of premature death among older Australians (especially death from cancer).

High animal protein intake is also associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

On the other hand, consuming more plant sources of protein is associated with:

• a lower risk of dying from cancer
• a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and
• improved blood cholesterol levels.

Many animal sources of protein are also relatively high in fat, particularly saturated fat.

A high intake of saturated fat contributes to increased risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease. Many Australians already eat more saturated fat than we need.

Many plant sources of protein, however, are also sources of dietary fibre, which most Australians don’t get enough of.

Having more dietary fibre helps reduce the risk of chronic diseases (such as heart disease) and supports gut health.

Striking a balance

Overall, where you get protein from – and having a balance between animal and plant sources – is more important than simply just trying to add ever more protein to your diet.

Protein, fats and carbohydrates all work together to keep your body healthy and the engine running smoothly.

We need all of these macro nutrients, along with vitamins and minerals, in the right proportions to support our health.

Margaret Murray does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What happens if I eat too much protein? – https://theconversation.com/what-happens-if-i-eat-too-much-protein-261849

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Tim Lindsey, Malcolm Smith Professor of Asian Law and Director of the Centre for Indonesian Law, Islam and Society, The University of Melbourne

For many Indonesians, the violent riots currently wracking Jakarta and other cities across the archipelago are eerily reminiscent of the riots of 1998 that accompanied the fall of former dictator Soeharto and his New Order regime after three decades in power.

As in 1998, demonstrators have targeted the legislative complex and “fat cat” politicians they see as neglecting and even impoverishing them. Rioters are also vandalising the homes of politicians and stripping them of luxury goods.

Also striking is the behaviour of the security forces. While there are widespread reports of violence by police, some members of the military are said to have been standing by and not stopping the looting. In one case, they even handed out drinks and cash to rioters.

Again, this reminds many of the involvement of the military in the 1998 riots, when soldiers harshly cracked down on protesters, but were also accused of facilitating rioting and looting. Current President Prabowo Subianto, then a senior army general, was dismissed after being allegedly implicated in these events, particularly in the forced disappearances of democracy activists.

The situation in Jakarta is not yet as serious as it was in 1998, but the presence of thousands of violent rioters targeting the rich and powerful is still a nightmare for Indonesia’s oligarchic elite. Mass protests are one of the few things that give them pause – and sometimes even force them to back down.

This is why those protests can also be vulnerable to manipulation by members of that same elite: they hope to weaponise public fury against each other.

But there is much more to these events than just elite rivalry.

Political perks and public pain

In recent years, huge protests calling on legislators to abandon plans to pass a repressive new criminal code or gut the once-respected Anti-Corruption Commission have failed. But this has only added to a backlog of grievances against politicians. On Independence Day on August 17, some protesters even flew pirate flags below the national flag. Officials called this act “treason”.

The current street protests began spontaneously a week later on August 25, with people calling for the dissolution of the national legislature (known by the acronym DPR). Protesters were enraged that legislators had granted themselves lavish new monthly housing allowances of approximately A$4,700, which the deputy speaker claimed was still not enough, even though many politicians already earn more than $9,000 per month (and some more than $21,000), tax free.

The angry public response was understandable, given the minimum wage in Jakarta is just $500 per month. There is deep resentment in Indonesia of politicians, who are seen as corrupt, lazy and out of touch.

The growing budget hole created by Prabowo’s costly signature projects means many basic social services have been slashed since he was sworn in last October, including health, education and local government funding. The ranks of the poor are growing and the middle class is shrinking. Both segments of society are hurting.

Unsurprisingly, the demonstrators demanded the legislators’ new housing allowances be cancelled, along with other perks such as overseas junkets. Lawmakers responded arrogantly, with one even calling the protesters “the dumbest people in the world”.

The demonstrations were relatively calm at first. Then, on August 28, a 21-year-old motorcycle taxi driver, Affan Kurniawan, who happened to be making a delivery near the protests, was run over and killed by a police vehicle.

The symbolism could hardly be starker. A precarious gig economy worker struggling to support his parents on a pittance crushed by an armoured vehicle driven by the police, popularly seen as corrupt and oppressive agents of the political elite. It seemed to encapsulate the issue at the heart of the demonstrations – elite greed and lack of concern for the “little people”.

Motorbike taxi associations and many other community groups quickly organised, demanding police be held accountable. The protests then grew outside Jakarta police headquarters and spread rapidly across Indonesia. Rioters targeted police stations, government buildings, and bus and train stations.

Looting and even arson attacks followed, resulting in numerous regional legislatures being destroyed. There have been at least seven deaths so far.

Prabowo now says he is listening to protesters’ grievances and the DPR will cancel the legislator allowances. It remains to be seen if that ever happens and whether it will last, given it’s in Prabowo’s interests to keep lawmakers’ pockets full.

Reflecting his military past and “strongman” self-image, the president has also said the protesters are committing treason and terrorism. He has called on police to act against them with “determination”.

Conspiracy theories running wild

These events are clearly a threat to some members of the elite, but there is no doubt they offer opportunities to others.

Some protesters believe the different responses of the police and the army – longstanding rivals for status, funds and influence – reflect their competing political allegiances.

Prabowo, a former Special Forces commander, is said to be backed by the army, while the police chief, Listyo Sigit Prabowo (no relation), is loyal to former president Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, who appointed him. Jokowi also presided over huge growth in police budgets and numbers while in office.

While Prabowo won last year’s presidential election thanks to an alliance he formed with Jokowi, the two now seem locked in a struggle for power.

Some critics suggest it would suit Prabowo for the police to be the villains in the current protests, as that would weaken Jokowi. Army inaction (or even provocation or support for the rioting) helps achieve that. The ultimate aim, they suggest, might even be to disband the national police and make it a subordinate branch of the military, as it was under Soeharto.

In 1998, Prabowo was allegedly involved in manipulating the rioting in Jakarta in a failed effort to win power. Many Indonesians believe a similar high-stakes scheme today is not beyond him.

Whether or not this is true, conspiracy theories are running wild. It’s certainly possible the elite would try to meddle in events in the streets, even if details are likely to remain murky.

But it’s equally apparent the protests are a genuine outburst of long-simmering grievances against the political elite, guided by grassroots civil society organisations. Unfortunately, these groups have not yet been able to articulate the clear set of political demands that could create a more unified movement out of the street protests, as happened in 1998.

How will Prabowo respond?

Will the elite back down? They did in 1998. Then, the rioting forced the New Order elite to purge themselves of their more toxic members (such as Soeharto and, for a while, his then son-in-law, Prabowo) and reconfigure as nominal Reformasi democrats.

But that does not look likely this time – at least not yet. Although Indonesia has been a constitutional democracy since 1999, real political authority is still firmly in the hands of a relatively small, entrenched, oligarchic elite.

They have learned to win elections and control the political process so effectively there is no meaningful political party opposition at all. This has created an increasingly undemocratic ruling coalition that has its own savage internal fights (such as those between Jokowi and Prabowo), but has proved extraordinarily resilient and resistant to external pressure.

While many rich and powerful oligarchs fear Prabowo’s innate authoritarianism, the current crisis is probably not enough to force a split with him.

Indeed, Prabowo may even be able to use his response to the riots to further consolidate his power. Some suggest he may even impose martial law if they continue.

And this means that once the current unrest dies down (and that may take a while), and Prabowo and his inner circle feel sufficiently in control again, a harsh crackdown on civil society critics and protest leaders is a very real possibility.

Tim Lindsey receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. What’s behind the rioting in Indonesia? And will the much-loathed political elite back down? – https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-the-rioting-in-indonesia-and-will-the-much-loathed-political-elite-back-down-264470

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ian Hall, Professor of International Relations, Griffith University

Just months into President Donald Trump’s second term in office, one of the United States’ most important strategic partnerships is in crisis.

Relations between the US and India are at their lowest ebb in a quarter of a century. Things are so bad that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reportedly refused to accept calls from Trump for more than two months.

In recent days, Trump labelled trade ties with India a “totally one-sided disaster” and a report emerged that he is no longer planning to visit India later this year for a summit of the Quad partners (India, the US, Australia and Japan).

So bad, so quickly

Things were not meant to happen this way. Many in New Delhi were delighted when Trump won the election last year. Modi congratulated his “friend” on X, along with pictures of the two embracing and holding hands.

India’s foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, told journalists that while other countries might be “nervous” about Trump’s return, India was not.

Feeling confident, Modi went to Washington to meet Trump days after his return to office. The encounter did not go well.

On the eve of the meeting, Modi was embarrassed by distressing images of Indian nationals, handcuffed and shackled, being deported from the US on a military aircraft.

In the Oval Office, he promised to buy more US arms, oil and gas, and asked that Trump not impose punitive tariffs on India. Modi failed to get that commitment.

A few weeks later, Trump announced India would be hit with a 27% tariff – far higher than the 10% imposed on China – unless it could negotiate something better.

Crisis in Kashmir

Begrudgingly, New Delhi began to talk trade. US Vice President JD Vance visited India in late April and both sides made positive noises about a deal. But while Vance was in town, India was engulfed in a new crisis.

On April 22, terrorists killed 26 people – mostly Hindu tourists – in Kashmir, long the site of simmering conflict between India and Pakistan. The Modi government pledged to respond with force, as it had done in the past after similar incidents.

On May 7, India bombed what it claimed were militant camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. A rapidly escalating, unpredictable conflict followed, as both sides used drones and missiles to attack one another.

Alarmed, governments around the world urged the two nuclear-armed states to end hostilities before matters got out of control. Early in the morning on May 10, they did, and agreed to a ceasefire.

Trump anoints himself peacemaker

Before either the Indian or Pakistani governments had a chance to say anything, Trump stepped in to take credit.

On social media, he announced both sides had agreed a deal. The next day he claimed they would soon sit down with him as mediator and find a solution to the Kashmir conflict.

Islamabad was jubilant at this outcome. New Delhi, meanwhile, was furious.

India’s longstanding view is that the Kashmir dispute must be settled bilaterally, without third-party involvement. The US has accepted this position for more than 20 years. Now it appeared Trump was taking a different view.

This put Modi in a bind. Keen to maintain a mutually beneficial partnership and avoid punitive tariffs, he did not wish to upset Trump.

But he could not acknowledge Trump’s claims without setting aside a fundamental principle of Indian policy. So, Modi called Washington and explained he would not accept mediation over Kashmir.

The final straw

Meanwhile, Pakistan saw an opportunity to win favour in Washington and drive a wedge between the US and India.

Recognising that Trump covets a Nobel Peace Prize, Islamabad nominated him for his supposed role in ending the conflict.

Enthused, Trump called Modi on June 17 and asked him to do the same. Worse still, Trump requested Modi stop in Washington on the way back from the G7 summit in Canada, and meet with Pakistan’s military chief, Asim Munir.

According to a recent report, that was the final straw for Modi. He flatly refused both requests. The two men reportedly haven’t spoken since.

Piqued, Trump responded by punishing India for continuing to buy Russian oil by lifting its tariff rate to 50% and postponing trade talks.

New Delhi’s dilemma

Trump’s actions have ordinary Indians seething and demanding action, but the Modi government does not have good options.

Giving in to coercion would make Modi – dubbed by political opponents “Narender Surrender” – look weak. Yet, no other major power can offer India what it needs in terms of markets, investment, technology, weapons and diplomatic support.

With US-India relations strained, New Delhi has been working hard to stabilise its relationship with China, which has been tense since bloody border clashes between the two in 2020.

Modi went to China for the first time in seven years on August 31 to further that aim, shaking hands with President Xi Jinping. But although Xi emphasised the need for amicable ties – he said the “elephant and dragon should dance together” – there is little trust between India and China at present.

Modi has more faith in Russia. In China, Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly spoke for nearly an hour in Putin’s limousine. And Modi will host the Russian leader for more talks in India later this year. However, Russia remains a pariah in Europe, with limited means to help.

Other countries, like Japan, where Modi stopped off on his way to China, could also help India navigate the current crisis. But they do not have the clout to resolve it.

Unless Modi can find a way to win Trump back, India’s next few years could be very difficult.

Ian Hall has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Department of Defence, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. He is an honorary Academic Fellow of the Australia India Institute.

– ref. Donald Trump was once India’s best friend. How did it all go wrong? – https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-was-once-indias-best-friend-how-did-it-all-go-wrong-264272