Tag: police state

UK Government Video Game Teaches Teens Questioning Mass Immigration Could Make Them Terror Suspects

Britain’s globalist—and increasingly authoritarian—state has found a new way to ‘fight extremism’: teach teenagers that asking the ‘wrong questions’ about mass immigration could make them terrorists.

According to newly surfaced materials, a government-funded video game now warns schoolchildren that doubting the positive effects of unrelenting  mass migration will land them in the crosshairs of counter-terrorism authorities.

The program, called Pathways, is marketed as an “educational” interactive experience for students aged 11 to 18. In practice, however, it functions as a digital loyalty test, funded in part by the Home Office’s Prevent program, Britain’s controversial anti-extremism scheme.

The game goes something like this. Players are placed in the role of a white teenage character named Charlie, newly enrolled in college and navigating modern Britain’s ideological minefield. Every decision—what videos to watch, what opinions to express, even whether to research immigration statistics—is tracked by an in-game extremism meter.

The premise is simple and utterly unmistakable: curiosity is dangerous, skepticism is suspect, and deviation from approved liberal-globalist, views carries severe consequences. Choose the wrong dialogue option, and Charlie is flagged for “extreme right-wing ideology,” a category that now appears to include asking basic questions about national identity.

Even the character’s gender is carefully flattened. Regardless of whether players select a male or female avatar, Charlie is referred to exclusively as “they,” a telling detail in a game obsessed with left-liberal ideological conformity.

Early scenarios in the game set the tone. Charlie struggles academically and is outperformed by an Afro-British classmate, after which players are nudged toward ‘correct’ emotional responses while being warned against drawing conclusions about immigration or competition.

At several points, the game introduces online posts claiming the government prioritizes migrants over British veterans for housing. Players are encouraged to scroll past these claims silently. Engaging, questioning, or researching them triggers ominous warnings.

Attempting to “learn more” is portrayed as especially risky. The game depicts Charlie being overwhelmed by statistics, reports, and protest information. Instead of being framed as civic engagement, the game clearly suggests it’s a slippery slope into ideological contamination.

Keep reading

Why Insulting Brigitte Macron Online Can Mean Prison Time in France

In the United States, poking fun at politicians online is a birthright. In France, it could land you in jail.

On Monday, a French court found 10 people guilty of cyberbullying France’s first lady, Brigitte Macron. The defendants’ “crime” was falsely claiming on X that the first lady was born male and characterizing her relationship with French President Emmanuel Macron as pedophilic. (The French president met his wife when he was about 16 years old and she was a 39-year-old drama teacher at his high school.)

Defendants denied the charges against them by “saying their posts were either meant in jest or constituted legitimate debate,” reports The New York Times. Unfortunately for them, this argument rang hollow for the court, which handed out a variety of punishments. These included compulsory cyberbullying awareness training, eight suspended prison sentences, one six-month sentence to be served from home, and a six-month social media ban for five of the defendants. The defendants were also fined 600 euros (roughly $700) each and were ordered “to contribute to a total of 10,000 euros—about $12,000—in compensation” to the first lady, reports the Times.

While the thought of someone facing fines and jail time for a social media post may seem strange to Americans (although it does sometimes happen), French constitutional law is much more permissive of speech restrictions than its American counterpart.

The French Constitution holds that “any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely.” However, unlike the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it immediately caveats this right by excluding “what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law.”

This carveout has allowed the French government to outlaw speech acts like bullying, which it defines as “the act of bullying a person through repeated comments or behavior whose purpose or effect is to degrade their quality of life, leading to an alteration in their physical or mental well-being.” Cyberbullying is defined as bullying through an electronic medium. Both are punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros (nearly $35,000).

Based on the punishment they could have received, the defendants in the Macron case got off practically scot-free. But that doesn’t mean that we should praise the French court for its graciousness. Comparing French and American law reveals just how unlucky the French are when it comes to their free speech rights.

Ari Cohn, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, tells Reason that, while there are laws in the U.S. against cyber harassment, they have been interpreted narrowly by courts to comply with the First Amendment.

Keep reading

Starmer’s Looking for an Excuse to Ban X

Keir Starmer has signaled he is prepared to back regulatory action that could ultimately result in X being blocked in the UK.

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has suggested, more or less, that because Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok has been generating images of women and minors in bikinis, he’ll support going as far as hitting the kill switch and blocking access to the entire platform.

“The situation is disgraceful and disgusting,” Starmer said on Greatest Hits Radio; the station best known for playing ABBA and now, apparently, for frontline authoritarian tech policy announcements.

“X has got to get a grip of this, and Ofcom has our full support to take action…I’ve asked for all options to be on the table.”

“All options,” for those who don’t speak fluent Whitehall euphemism, now apparently includes turning Britain’s digital infrastructure into a sort of beige North Korea, where a bunch of government bureaucrats, armed with nothing but Online Safety Act censorship law and the panic of a 90s tabloid, get to decide which speech the public is allowed to see.

Now, you might be wondering: Surely he’s bluffing? Oh no. According to Downing Street sources, they’re quite serious.

And they’ve even named the mechanism: the Online Safety Act; that cheery little piece of legislation that sounds like it’s going to help grandmothers avoid email scams, but actually gives Ofcom the power to block platforms, fine them into oblivion, or ban them entirely if they don’t comply with government censorship orders.

Killing X isn’t a new idea. You may remember Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff, founded the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. In 2024, leaks revealed that the group was trying to “Kill Musk’s Twitter.”

Keep reading

Trump Says He Expects To ‘Run’ Venezuela for Years

President Trump has told The New York Times that he expects to “run” Venezuela for many years following the US attack on Caracas to abduct President Nicolas Maduro.

By “running” Venezuela, the president appears to mean controlling its oil industry and getting access to the country’s vast oil reserves, the largest in the world, for more American companies.

“We will rebuild it in a very profitable way,” he told the paper. “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need.”

When asked how long he expects the US to remain Venezuela’s “political overlord,” three months, six months, or a year, the president said, “I would say much longer.”

Trump has threatened to attack Venezuela again and potentially send troops, but declined to say what sort of situation could lead to that. “I wouldn’t want to tell you that,” he said.

Trump and his top officials have said that the US will be controlling Venezuela’s oil sales and will start by acquiring 30 million to 50 million barrels. However, Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, has framed the deal as a routine sale of oil to the US, similar to its dealings with Chevron, which continues to operate in the country.

Trump insisted to the Times that Venezuela’s government, which is currently led by Acting President Delcy Rodriguez, Maduro’s vice president, is “giving us everything that we feel is necessary.”

Rodriguez has said that no “foreign agent” is running Venezuela and has maintained that Maduro is the rightful president and must be released by the US. “Today, more than ever, the Bolivarian political forces stand firm and united to guarantee the stability of our nation,” she said in a post on Telegram on Thursday.

“Together with the Great Patriotic Pole Simón Bolívar (GPPSB), we have reviewed and cohesively adopted three lines of action: the release of our heroes, President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores; preserving peace and stability throughout the national territory; and consolidating governance for the benefit of our people,” she added.

Keep reading

The First Amendment Allows You to Report Things the Government Doesn’t Want Reported

The House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed journalist Seth Harp (Washington Post, 1/8/26) over his posting on X a photo and publicly available biographical information about the US colonel who apparently leads the Army’s Delta Force unit, which played a key role in the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Committee member Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R–Fla.) called for Harp’s criminal prosecution, accusing him of “leaking classified information” and “doxing” the colonel. In a statement to the Washington Post, she said:

The First Amendment does not give anyone a license to expose elite military personnel, compromise operations or assist our adversaries under the guise of reporting.

Actually, the First Amendment does give you a license to do all of those things. None of them are covered by the extremely limited exceptions to the freedom of the press recognized by the US Constitution.

And allowing these is not the unfortunate consequence of unbridled free expression; these are liberties that are core to maintaining a semblance of democracy. Do you want to be ruled by secret military commanders? Do you want it to be illegal to report on your country’s use of military force? Do you want to live in a country where journalists are in prison for “assisting our adversaries”?

Unfortunately, though, the House Oversight Committee apparently does want all of those things.

Keep reading

UK Orders Ofcom to Explore Encryption Backdoors

By now, we’ve all heard the familiar refrain: “It’s for your safety.” It’s the soothing mantra of every government official who’s ever wanted a peek behind your digital curtains.

This week, with a move that would make East Germany blush, the UK government officially confirmed its intention to hand Ofcom  (yes, that Ofcom, the regulator that once investigated whether Love Island was too spicy) the keys to your private messages.

The country, already experiencing rapidly declining civil liberties, is now planning to scan encrypted chats for “bad stuff.”

Now, for those unfamiliar, Ofcom is the UK’s communications regulator that has recently been given censorship pressure powers for online speech.

It’s become the government’s Swiss Army knife for everything from internet censorship to now, apparently, full-blown surveillance.

Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom has been handed something called Section 121, which sounds like a tax loophole but is actually a legal crowbar for prying open encrypted messages.

It allows the regulator to compel any online service that lets people talk to each other, Facebook Messenger, Signal, iMessage, etc to install “accredited technology” to scan for terrorism or child abuse material.

Keep reading

No Surprise: Burma Army Leads Stilted Elections

The first round of Burma (Myanmar)’s three-phase elections began on December 28, 2025, under a framework imposed by the military junta that seized power in January 2021. With major opposition parties barred, voting canceled in 65 of the country’s 330 townships due to ongoing fighting, and further cancellations expected, the military-aligned Union Solidarity and Development Party is leading, an outcome critics say was predetermined.

The results defy logic. If the people wanted to be ruled by generals, they would not have been fighting the military for the past eight decades in what is widely recognized as the world’s longest-running conflict.

Opposition groups argue the vote is neither free nor fair and serves to legitimize continued military rule through tightly controlled elections that exclude major parties and suppress dissent, prompting several groups to call for a boycott.

The military government said more than six million people voted in the Dec. 28 first phase, claiming a turnout of about 52 percent of eligible voters in participating areas and calling it a success. The Union Election Commission said the USDP won 38 seats in the 330-seat lower house, with results still pending.

Party leader Khin Yi, a former general and police chief closely aligned with junta leader Min Aung Hlaing, was declared the winner in his Naypyitaw constituency. Naypyitaw is the military-built administrative capital established after the coup.

According to a senior USDP official speaking anonymously, the party has secured 88 of the 102 seats contested in the first phase, including 29 constituencies where it ran unopposed. The Shan Nationalities Democratic Party and the Mon Unity Party each won one seat. The official also claimed the USDP captured about 85 percent of contested regional legislature seats, though full results will only be known after later phases.

Myanmar’s parliament consists of two houses with 664 total seats, and the party controlling a combined majority can select the president and form a government. Under the constitution, the military is guaranteed 25 percent of seats in each chamber, giving it decisive built-in power regardless of election outcomes. Only six parties are competing nationwide with any realistic chance of parliamentary influence, with the USDP far ahead of its rivals.

Voting is being held in three phases because of ongoing fighting across the country. The first round covered 102 townships, with additional voting scheduled for Jan. 11 and Jan. 25, while 65 townships are excluded entirely due to conflict. Although thousands of candidates from dozens of parties are nominally contesting seats, political competition remains tightly restricted.

Keep reading

White House Says It Will ‘Dictate’ the Decisions of the Venezuelan Government

The White House on Wednesday claimed that the US would be “dictating” the decisions of the Venezuelan government moving forward, as the Trump administration is attempting to control Venezuela’s oil supply following the US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“We’re continuing to be in close coordination with the interim authorities,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, referring to Maduro’s government, which is now led by Acting President Delcy Rodriguez.

Leavitt added that “their decisions are going to continue to be dictated by the United States of America.” In Caracas, Rodriguez and other Venezuelan officials are putting a very different message.

“The government of Venezuela is in charge in our country, and no one else. There is no foreign agent governing Venezuela,” said Rodriguez, who has called for the US to free Maduro so he can return to his position.

In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, Vice President JD Vance said that the US can control Venezuela by deciding where it’s allowed to sell its oil.

“We control the energy resources, and we tell the regime, you’re allowed to sell the oil so long as you serve America’s national interest, you’re not allowed to sell it if you can’t serve America’s national interest,” Vance said.

President Trump is also threatening to bomb Venezuela again and potentially send troops if the government doesn’t do the bidding of the US, and appeared to threaten Rodriguez’s life by saying she would have a fate worse than Maduro if she didn’t fall in line.

On Tuesday night, Trump said that Venezuela will be “turning over” between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil to the US. He said the oil will be “sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.”

Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, said in a statement that it was advancing an oil sale to the US and that it would be similar to deals with Chevron, the US oil firm that has continued to operate in the country. “The process … is based on strictly commercial transactions under terms that are legal, transparent and beneficial for both parties,” PDVSA said.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said that the US will control Venezuela’s oil sales “indefinitely” and will deposit revenues from the deals into US-controlled bank accounts.

In a follow-up post on Wednesday, Trump claimed that under the deal, Venezuela will be purchasing US goods with the money made from the sale. “I have just been informed that Venezuela is going to be purchasing ONLY American Made Products, with the money they receive from our new Oil Deal,” he said.

The president continued, “These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela’s Electric Grid and Energy Facilities. In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner – A wise choice, and a very good thing for the people of Venezuela, and the United States.”

Keep reading

Pakistan Blocks Major VPNs Under New Licensing Rules, Expanding State Control Over Internet Access

Over the past two weeks, internet users in Pakistan have watched their encrypted connections vanish one after another. Beginning December 22, 2025, major VPNs, including Proton VPN, NordVPN, ExpressVPN, Surfshark, Mullvad, Cloudflare WARP, and Psiphon have been systematically blocked across the country, according to Daily Pakistan.

The blackout follows a government licensing framework that, on paper, regulates VPN providers but in practice gives the state the power to decide which privacy tools are permitted.

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) began enforcing its Class Value Added Services (CVAS-Data) licensing rules in November 2025, nearly a year after quietly introducing the policy.

Under these regulations, companies that want to operate legally must install “Legal Interception” compliant hardware and hand it over “to nationally authorized security organizations” at their own expense whenever instructed.

Any VPN not listed as licensed is automatically subject to blocking by domestic internet providers.

Keep reading

California Family Loses Custody Of Daughter After Refusing To Medically “Affirm” Her Transgender Identity

A Ukrainian family in California says Child Welfare removed their teenage daughter from their home and placed them on the child abuse registry after they declined to “affirm” her transgender identity. Speaking to Reduxx under the condition of anonymity, the parents say the removal followed a report filed by their daughter’s psychiatrist without their knowledge.

The mother, who will be referred to as Ellie, told Reduxx that a social worker from Shasta County Child Welfare Services arrived at the family’s home on June 3, 2024, without prior notice. According to Ellie, the worker accused the parents of emotional abuse and demanded access to their daughter, who will be referred to as Maya, without presenting a warrant or court order.

“She just kept saying, ‘You’re emotionally abusing your child,’” Ellie said. “But she had nothing in her hands. No paperwork. Nothing.”

The removal was a dramatic climax following years of instability that Ellie says began in early childhood. After the family immigrated to the United States in 2007, Maya began experiencing anxiety, anger issues, attention difficulties, and emotional dysregulation. Her mental health concerns, which once resulted in a temporary placement in a psychiatric facility, were made worse by the persistent bullying she experienced at school starting in first and second grade. She said the bullying came not only from other students but also from indifferent teachers, and that repeated complaints to school administrators were dismissed.

Keep reading