While recently searching YouTube for a specific 1970s TV program, I happened upon a classic show from the era: The Dating Game. Yes, many readers here remember it well. The show typically featured a solo girl seated in a chair asking romance-oriented questions to three mystery men she couldn’t see. The exchanges were often amusing. After the questioning, the girl picked a guy to have a special, all-expenses-paid date with, courtesy of the show. To watch an episode today, over half a century later, is quite striking, if not shocking and depressing — given the degraded state of our culture today. The girl and guys were clean cut, dressed nicely, prettily, handsomely. They weren’t slobs. The episode that I caught happened to include an unknown young man by the name of Tom Selleck, who was not a TV star at that point. Selleck and the other guys looked sharp — jackets, ties, shaven. The girl’s parents would have had no qualms about any of these gentlemen taking out their daughter. Or at least judging by appearances. (Click here to watch.) As for the girl in this 1967 episode — named Madonna Brown and described as “vivacious and enthusiastic” — she was not just pretty but a picture of purity. Like the guys, she wasn’t drilled and stamped and dyed. No bolt through her nose or tongue (a real turn off for kissing). No tattoo of Lucifer or a Marijuana leaf on an arm so discolored that it looks like the poor creature has a repulsive skin disease. No blue hair. And needless to say, there was no “transgender” individual tossed in to check the woke-DEI boxes to satisfy the culturally-morally insane. Of course, what I’m describing is not merely that one episode with Tom Selleck. (By the way, Selleck lost out to Bachelor #3, a swimmer from Indiana University in Bloomington, like our own R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.) I got hooked and watched several more episodes. They were all like this. I was also struck by the fact that when the happy gal and her chosen beau smiled at the announcement of their surprise vacation trip together, The Dating Game host noted that they were to be accompanied by a chaperone. Yes, a chaperone. The network wasn’t about to send off the couple for a week-long romp in a hotel room in Tijuana. No way, José. The show was a wonderful walk back in time — to a better place and better world. And what particularly hit me was the contrast to an immensely popular current show called Love Island, which our Andrew Gondy wrote about at The American Spectator. Andrew said it so well that I’ll quote him at length: In this show, a group of contestants, labeled “islanders,” are isolated on a constantly surveilled island villa. To win the show and its $100,000 prize, participants must couple with another contestant, whether for “love,” survival, or most often, promiscuity. “Islanders” choose their partner based on first impressions, but often “re-couple” by choosing or being chosen by another contestant. The survival aspect of the show is interactive, as viewers vote on which couple seems to have the most compatibility or sexual appeal with one another. The concept of “re-coupling” encourages contestants to swap partners…. Love Island is widely consumed by teenagers and young adults, and it sets a precedent that promiscuity, body flaunting, and surface-level attraction are not only normal but also admirable…. In the show, sex and intimacy are bargaining chips and survival tactics, with hookups being the common theme of the game show. The island theme also means that the show’s filming and production are entirely based on the sexual appeal of the contestants. Slow-motion montages of desirable features align this show more closely with softcore pornography than reality television. Vanity, lust, and the commodification of sex are the core of Love Island, not secondary features. Contestants often share beds and are shown engaging in sexual acts, only edited or obscured to avoid the production of literal porn. Gondy notes that this “entertainment” is offered for the “arousal of the show’s viewers, who devour the spectacle with mouths agape.” It’s also offered for the arousal of the male contestants, who gobble up the attractive girls given to them. It’s quite a deal for the guy. He gets to try out all these hot babes, delivered to him if not on a silver platter (maybe that, too) then right into his bed, courtesy of the generous TV hosts. I suspect that Love Island is besieged with male applicants. Man, where were girls like this when I was dating? I was born a generation too early! When I was growing up in the 1980s, a show like this would have infuriated feminists. They would have been scowling and howling and barking about sexual exploitation. And yet, these girls today don’t seem to mind at all. They seem more than happy to be sexual playthings. For the record, female viewers don’t seem to mind either. They’re titillated by the lurid near-nude shots. In my day, guys who stared at such stuff were shamed as peeping Toms. Now, women watch en masse with prurient interest. For them, it’s a version of what my colleague Teresa Tomeo refers to as “mommy porn.” Worse, the show is merely the latest iteration of the whole sick, depraved genre (recall The Bachelor, not to mention the egregious Temptation Island). It’s all the same sewage. Rather than a modern version of The Dating Game, these shows are an altogether new spectacle. You might call it “The Mating Game,” though even that’s not quite right, because the couples don’t mate. Whereas dating once upon a time in America involved courting and potentially finding a spouse to marry and have children with, the goal of these modern moral monstrosities is anything but mating. The chief objective, above all others, is not to procreate. The only thing that viewers and contestants all know is that they don’t want an unexpected human life to be born from their wild sex. (RELATED: Loneliness Is the New Oil) In fact, that prompts a thought regarding the organizers of these shows: I assume they screen the girls to make sure (at the behest of the guy, too) that they’re on birth control. Of course, birth control does fail. Does the show (and the guy) bear any responsibility for unwanted pregnancies? Do abortions result? I can’t imagine they don’t. That’s as elementary as the birds and bees. Abortion aside, there’s an even higher risk of STDs. Sexually transmitted diseases are a plague among young people today, especially among those who behave like the contestants in these shows. They might not walk away from these shows with an unwanted baby, but they’re surely sauntering away with unwanted STDs. Does the show screen contestants for STDs? Surely, many people watching are wondering. These shows are trash. And they peddle their rot to a culture that apparently enjoys these voyeuristic forays to the moral dumpster. And yes, I realize that not everything was right in the world of The Dating Game. A good-looking person dressed neatly is obviously not necessarily a good person that you want to marry. I know, I know. Blah, blah, blah. Still, I prefer the more classy, dignified time when decency was at least a shared objective. READ MORE from Paul Kengor: Brian Burch: America’s Ideal Ambassador to the Holy See Remembering Dave Parker and ’70s Baseball Mark Levin’s On Power Packs a Powerful Punch

This September, as world leaders gather in New York for the U.N. General Assembly, climate groups are already preparing massive street protests. Branded as the “Make Billionaires Pay” march, the event will not focus solely on fossil fuels. It will also include causes like migrant rights and gender equity, all under the banner of climate justice. If past experience is any guide, the rallies will be loud, dramatic, and more about spectacle than solutions. That has become the trend. In London, activists once hurled tomato soup on Van Gogh’s Sunflowers. In New York, a protester glued themselves to the floor of the U.S. Open, delaying a semifinal match for nearly an hour. In 2023, demonstrators blocked roads to the Burning Man festival, creating a miles-long traffic jam in the desert until police hauled them off. These stunts did not cut a single ton of carbon emissions, but they did provide something else: a sense of belonging for a restless generation. (RELATED: Climate Activists Want to Derail the AI Revolution) Although there has been a modest revival of faith among some young people, especially young men turning toward Christianity, Gen Z remains the least religious generation in American history. Surveys show that while small pockets are rediscovering faith or experimenting with spirituality, the broader trend is still one of religious decline and disaffiliation. That leaves many without the traditional sources of meaning and community that older generations once relied on. (RELATED: The Youngest Voters Are Trending Conservative) At the same time that Gen Z is moving away from religion, reports on their well-being paint a troubling picture. A recent report found that nearly half of Gen Z say they feel stressed or anxious most of the time, and more than 40 percent say they experience persistent sadness or hopelessness. Financial strain and fear about the future are at the top of the list. Without the stabilizing role that faith and community once played, these struggles become even heavier, leaving many young people feeling adrift and unsure of what their lives will add up to. (RELATED: AI Chatbots Are Not the Answer to Alleviating Loneliness for Young People) Why climate? Because it offers cosmic stakes. If the planet itself hangs in the balance, then every choice in life becomes morally charged. Into that vacuum steps climate activism. It looks less like a policy campaign and more like a substitute faith. It has its rituals like marches, sit-ins, and slogans. It has its saints, like Greta Thunberg. And it has its central creed, which casts fossil fuels as the great evil and warns of an apocalypse that can only be avoided through devotion to the cause. (RELATED: EPA Proposes to Drive ‘A Dagger Into the Heart of the Climate Change Religion’) Why climate? Because it offers cosmic stakes. If the planet itself hangs in the balance, then every choice in life becomes morally charged. What you eat, how you travel, even whether you should bring children into the world. For many young people, that makes climate activism not just a political issue but a source of identity. The trouble is that this new faith often breeds despair instead of hope. A Lancet survey found that most young people now say they are extremely worried about climate change, and many feel paralyzed by the belief that humanity has only a decade left. That kind of thinking only cultivates fear and hopelessness. And the chosen rituals are counterproductive. Soup splashed on a painting does not save the Amazon rainforest. Blocking commuters in Washington does not reduce emissions in China. These actions are closer to acts of penance than practical solutions. They are designed to demonstrate loyalty to the cause, even if they alienate the very people whose support is needed. When an activist glues himself to the floor of a stadium or clogs traffic for working families, he is not persuading anyone. He is performing devotion. What Gen Z really needs is not more apocalyptic sermons. It is opportunity, stability, and purpose rooted in reality. If young people feel that the system is stacked against them, that they will never afford a home or build a family, then it is no wonder they cling to a movement that tells them the whole world is collapsing. But the answer is not to scold them for their hysteria. It is to give them something better to believe in. That means building communities that welcome them. It means opening paths to careers where they can feel useful and independent. And yes, it means channeling their concern for the planet into tangible conservation efforts like cleaning waterways or restoring forests, not theatrical disruption. There is real work to be done, but it looks nothing like throwing soup at Van Gogh. Republicans are often quick to laugh at climate panic, and sometimes it deserves a laugh. But simply dismissing it misses the point. Young people are not only protesting oil companies or Donald Trump. They are protesting the emptiness in their own lives. If that void is not addressed, the protests will only grow more extreme. Climate activism at the United Nations General Assembly will make headlines in September. It will be framed as a fight against billionaires and fossil fuels. In reality, it will be another ritual in a new secular faith. Climate activism has become a spiritual substitute for a generation that feels lost. Until we give young people something stronger to hold on to, the rituals of despair will keep multiplying. Iulia Lupse is the founder of I&A Communications Solutions and a contributor with Young Voices. Born in Romania, she is now based in New York. Follow her on X at @IuliaL27 READ MORE: The Carbon Aristocracy: How the Rich Engineered the Climate Crisis — And Made You Pay for It Conservatism Can Help Gen Z Conquer Its Biggest Struggle Why Gen Z Is Giving Up on Sex, Love, and Each Other

Democrats are in dire straits, uncertain of what they believe, unsure of where to turn. Behind closed doors, some whisper about reinvention. The chatter points in one direction: their own version of a populist, anti-establishment, MAGA-like makeover. A Democratic brand of ‘people power’ to counter Trump’s movement. A rebellion in blue, packaged as the ticket back to the White House in 2028. The fantasy is seductive. After all, MAGA reshaped the Republican Party almost overnight. Trump dismantled its stale orthodoxies — globalism, Bush-era wars, free-trade dogma — and replaced them with raw populism. He gave disillusioned voters not just rhetoric, but a cause, a movement to rally behind. Republicans who once sneered at protectionism, tariffs, and anti-interventionism now parrot Trump’s lines. Why wouldn’t Democrats try the same? (RELATED: MAGA and the Citizen Against Globalism) The answer is simple: they can’t. MAGA worked because it was real. Democrats can only mimic, and mimicry is death in politics. The names floated … read like a roll call of technocrats auditioning for the role of “populist” in a play no one believes. Start with the obvious. Democrats have no Trump. They have no figure capable of summoning the rage, loyalty, and electricity he does. The names floated — Gavin Newsom, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, J.B. Pritzker, Pete Buttigieg — read like a roll call of technocrats auditioning for the role of “populist” in a play no one believes. Newsom in particular embodies the problem. He markets himself as a fighter against Republican authoritarianism, a slick-haired slayer of “MAGA extremism.” But his rebellion is cosmetic. The suit is tailored. The smile is rehearsed. He is California’s elite distilled into a single man, complete with a Napa vineyard and Hollywood donors. To pretend this is “anti-establishment” is laughable. (RELATED: Gavin Newsom’s California Is a Crashing Caliphate of Chaos) The Democratic Party is structurally incapable of producing a populist revolt. Why? Because populism requires turning on your own. Trump didn’t just run against Democrats; he ran against Republicans — against the Bushes, McCains, and Romneys who embodied the GOP establishment. MAGA drew its strength from burning bridges. Democrats, by contrast, are institutionally wedded to their elite class. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the universities, the media — all are not just allies but patrons. To truly mimic MAGA, a Democratic candidate would have to turn on those very forces. That will never happen. Even their rhetoric betrays the bind. Trump could call the Iraq War a disaster, rail against NAFTA, trash Paul Ryan’s austerity. Democrats cannot denounce woke ideology, green-energy dogmatism, or immigration excess without detonating their coalition. A party that relies on university activists, climate lobbies, and progressive nonprofits cannot run an “anti-establishment” crusade without gutting itself. They are locked into their own orthodoxy. There is also the problem of authenticity. MAGA was messy, unvarnished, visceral. Democrats prize management, messaging, “narrative discipline.” They prefer candidates who sound like press releases. The more they try to cosplay as populists, the more transparent the act becomes. Joe Biden, once pitched as Scranton Joe, governed as K Street Joe. Hillary Clinton tried “I’m just like you” photo ops, complete with subway rides and awkward Southern accents. Voters saw through it. When Democrats try to connect with everyday Americans, it inevitably slips into parody. This is why Gavin Newsom matters as a symbol. He is the logical endpoint of Democratic mimicry: a politician who wants to wear the populist mantle without touching the dirt. He growls in debates, rolls up his sleeves, and sprinkles in talk of ‘working people,’ but it’s pure theater. Behind the performance is a man who has never known hardship, never built anything outside politics, never stood where ordinary voters stand. And that’s why the contrast with MAGA is so stark. (RELATED: Gavin Newsom Wants To Be Donald Trump So Badly) MAGA keeps winning precisely because it isn’t branding; it’s belief. Its voters may not agree on everything, but they know what they despise: open borders, endless wars, cultural decay, rigged trade deals, a ruling class that sneers at them. Democrats cannot replicate this because their base is the ruling class. Their donors, activists, and cultural allies are the very forces Middle America feels trampled by. The party cannot simultaneously defend universities, tech monopolies, and DEI bureaucracies while pretending to be anti-establishment. (RELATED: Democrats’ Real Problem with Populism) The implications for 2028 are clear. Democrats may attempt a “MAGA of the Left” makeover, complete with new slogans and a candidate who talks tougher than usual. But it will ring hollow. Their coalition cannot tolerate the betrayal necessary to make it real. They are prisoners of their own orthodoxy, trapped between progressive activists demanding purity and elites demanding protection. The result will be more plastic populism — sanctimonious speeches, slick ads, choreographed outrage — that convinces no one outside their base. MAGA’s endurance proves something deeper: populism isn’t manufactured. It erupts. It grows from genuine betrayal and authentic defiance. It requires risk. Democrats will never risk turning on their true masters. They cannot torch the universities, the tech giants, the donor networks that sustain them. And without that, there’s no rebellion, only political pantomime. MAGA was real. Whatever the Democrats try to sell next, it won’t be. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: The Rotten Truth About the Egg Cartel Bill Maher Wants You to Suffer Academia’s Most Lucrative Con

Waiting for the next “Bond, James Bond” is like waiting for Godot. Bond aficionados hope that Amazon, which, through its acquisition of MGM, now owns the content and distribution rights for the Bond franchise, will render salvation of this iconic, urbane secret agent, assuming that a Mag 7 colossus can resurrect the brilliant creation of Ian Fleming. But not quite so fast. Bond’s future is now dependent upon the second-largest American corporation of the Fortune 500. Corporate bureaucracy and jargon could smother the renaissance of Bond, who was accustomed to having free rein and an infinite expense account in the pursuit of villains and anti-social miscreants. The question is whether a “giant corporation,” in the oft-repeated mantra of Senator Elizabeth Warren, can navigate the opaque world of espionage, said to be the world’s second-oldest profession. (RELATED: ‘No, Mr. Bond, I Expect You to Die.’) Then they will review those statements … to assure that the next Bond will be “cool” but without the vast epicurean and sexual appetites of his cinematic forebears. First, a phalanx of enthusiastic brand managers in Seattle will ponder the essence of Bond and what emotions he evokes. They will review the meaning of espionage since Joshua, an early covert operative in the ancient world. Like at Starbucks, they may sit at bleached circular tables in the spirit of egalitarianism, pouring into monitors, and tapping away to create mission and vision statements. They will be festooned with wired and wireless devices, networking each other at close to the speed of light. Then they will review those statements in draft with multiple corporate and community constituencies — to assure that the next Bond will be “cool” but without the vast epicurean and sexual appetites of his cinematic forebears. (RELATED: Will This Director Save James Bond or Bury Him for Good?) Second, the managers may produce verbose and cliché-ridden PowerPoint decks that address noble ideas such as delivering product excellence, meeting consumer needs, capitalizing on distribution prowess, applying cutting edge technology, leveraging Artificial Intelligence, doing a deep dive, ramping up the narrative, drilling down, shifting tectonic plates, differentiating competitively, going for low-hanging fruit, and achieving predominance. There will be meeting after meeting, resembling a close order drill, eventually liaising with gushing human resources staffers who are there to help — but actually impede product development by introducing concepts such as Bond’s emotional intelligence and the need for the elite Double-O section to show compassion, and not to disrespect the opposition. Indeed, Bond will defy the traditions of a clandestine British operative — and moral relativism could define him. Brit-bashing will be in vogue, and America will be portrayed as the heir and assignee of the British Empire, a neocolonial mutant using multinational corporations and brutal tariffs instead of condescending colonialists. Dictators will be seen as gentle as the flower children of Woodstock, just misunderstood autocrats yearning to show their humanity. (RELATED: The End of Bond and Britain) Bond will have a degree in gender and environmental studies, and as part of his vetting by MI6, the British foreign intelligence service, he will be required to submit compositions affirming progressive values to a review board with no experience in covert actions. The board will emphasize the preciousness of espionage and the cancel culture. There will be no need for an Aston Martin DB5, as with Sean Connery in Goldfinger, or a BMW Z3 as with Pierce Brosnan in Golden Eye. In NATO and friendly nations, Bond will joyfully ride an electric scooter, nodding to passersby in a benevolent way, sometimes taking selfies and texting. In hostile environments, Bond will drive the familiar blue-gray Amazon electric delivery truck, armor-plated to withstand an AK-47 7.62 mm round. In either case, he will not observe stop signs and traffic signals, like so many today. Every day will be casual day for Bond. His polyester baseball cap will be worn backwards, and his armoire will have an array of T-shirts with slogans that signal virtue. He will be more at ease in On Cloud sneakers designed in Switzerland than in the Crockett & Jones double buckle monk style Camberley English boot in black calf worn by Daniel Craig. Formal wear would mean a Patagonia fleece vest with a customized panda patch. There will also be no need for a Chelsea flat off the King’s Road in London. Bond will commune with Nature and live in a tree house in the Cotswolds, not far from the Cheltenham-based Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the high-tech signals intelligence (SIGINT) apparatus of Great Britain. MI6 will not need a “C,” or Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service. Rather, Bond will report daily to a chatbot to receive an intelligence briefing and instructions. Bond will also have a second home — a garage in Cupertino, with an old corduroy sofa where he can wire into the world of East and West, stuffing himself on a giant plate of nachos with extra jalapeños — served in a bed of kale. Bond will not be able to hold any opinions lest they offend someone, somewhere. There will also be no such thing as doing it for King and Country — rather, doing it for the chatbot. READ MORE from Frank Schell: Deregulation of Retirement Accounts Increases Risk Iran: The US Needs a Plan for the Day After India and Pakistan: No Solution, Just Damage Control Frank Schell is a business strategy consultant and former senior vice president of the First National Bank of Chicago. He was a Lecturer at the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, and is a contributor of opinion pieces to various journals.

Cracker Barrel’s recent logo redesign has sparked a heated debate, with many critics quick to call it just another example of “woke” branding. The company removed its iconic barrel and chair-sitting man from the logo, opting instead for a cleaner, simpler look. It’s clear that the leadership behind this change embraces progressive politics, but is this redesign really just about provoking outrage from conservatives? Or is it part of a broader, more complex business and cultural trend? Logo simplification is hardly unique to Cracker Barrel, and it’s not a new phenomenon. For years, brands have been stripping away intricate details in favor of minimalism. This is more than Land O’ Lakes removing the Indian woman from their butter packaging but keeping the land. It may be a cultural sensitivity response, but it is also one that aligns with modern branding trends. Pepsi has simplified its logo repeatedly over time, and Wendy’s has continually refined its image to stay relevant. Internet Explorer turned its “e” logo into a blue and green swirl. Firefox dropped the fox from its logo. Google lost the serif in its font, and Netflix dropped the “etflix” and went with a simple, red “N” instead. McDonald’s simplified until all that was left was its yellow “M,” and Burger King has moved to a flatter, cleaner look, removing shadows and extra elements. Genuinely begging companies to stop doing this logo simplification crap. https://t.co/Cphai3JZy3 — TheDeltaAgent (@TheDeltaAgentNC) August 21, 2025 The wave of logo simplification extends beyond just visual aesthetics; it reflects a significant shift in how brands communicate with their customers in a digital world. Logos need to be versatile and recognizable, whether they appear as tiny icons on smartphones, app thumbnails, or giant billboards. Complex, detailed logos that looked good in print or on storefronts decades ago often don’t translate well to digital formats where space and attention are limited — and they’re likely more expensive. Is the simplification of brand logos part of the same cultural shift, where visual restraint reflects a broader trend toward uniformity? Beyond practical considerations, there’s a cultural undercurrent that’s harder to quantify but no less real. Think about how expressive and unique cars were in the 1960s and 1970s — bold colors, distinctive shapes, chrome details — each model had a personality. Fast forward to today, and the majority of cars are white, black, or gray with design choices that prioritize efficiency and uniformity over individuality. It’s as if the physical world is becoming more utilitarian, less about personal expression and more about fitting into a standardized mold. Is the simplification of brand logos part of the same cultural shift, where visual restraint reflects a broader trend toward uniformity? (RELATED: When Cars Were Cars — And Cup Holders Held Cups) Interestingly, this trend coincides with a digital culture where people are often louder and more expressive about their identities than ever before. Social media platforms are pumped full of personal branding, political debates, and cultural expression. Yet, in contrast, the physical and commercial world — the logos on the products, the design of restaurants like Cracker Barrel, and even our cars — seems to be moving in the opposite direction toward minimalism and less visual noise. This paradox raises questions: Are companies simplifying logos in response to customer demand, or are they anticipating what they think customers want? Is this about meeting the expectations of a digital-first culture or shaping those expectations? Cracker Barrel stock is suffering under a stupid DEI push. It started with the new CEO claiming the ‘rebrand’ was overwhelmingly positive. But numbers don’t lie. It was a stupid move because it represents an attack upon its customer base. pic.twitter.com/3Q7d4bA7JJ — Jim Pfaff (@jimpfaff) August 21, 2025 Cracker Barrel’s leadership has stated that its redesign is about enhancing the brand experience through restaurant remodels and a refreshed menu. But if these additional changes are received the same way as the new logo reveal — which was followed by a $94 million plunge in market value — then Cracker Barrel might want to ask itself these questions. Nonetheless, Cracker Barrel stood by its shift in style. Chief Marketing Officer Sarah Moore said in a statement, “We believe in the goodness of hospitality, a spirit that has always defined us. Our story hasn’t changed. Our values haven’t changed.” The company’s logo and aesthetic have long been tied to a particular nostalgic, homey image that customers connected with emotionally. Stripping away those details can feel like erasing history, even if the company’s intention is to modernize. But Cracker Barrel’s customers are aging out, and they are not being replaced. The restaurant has faced a post-COVID slump in its struggle to stay open, battered by inflation and competition. In 2023, Cracker Barrel brought in CEO Julie Felss Masino, the same thick-glasses-wearing leftist who conservatives are blaming for the downfall of the brand. But Masino is not the cause of Cracker Barrel’s decline; she was likely a last-ditch effort to salvage the company. Clearly, this new CEO is not doing a good job. Now, Cracker Barrel has turned off its old customers with this rebrand — and what new target audience could this media frenzy possibly attract for in-store dining? Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino should face charges for this crime against humanity pic.twitter.com/auBFPi4bpr — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 21, 2025 Cracker Barrel likely brought in new leadership to be a change-maker like this. Hey, they’re in the news. But bad publicity isn’t good publicity. And while Cracker Barrel wasn’t doing well before the logo change, this isn’t necessarily reflective of the brand itself. People simply aren’t going to restaurants like they used to, especially in the aftermath of COVID. The rebrand might have inadvertently made the situation worse by removing the nostalgic appeal that was a core part of Cracker Barrel’s identity. Ultimately, this redesign likely won’t reverse the larger trend of people preferring food delivery and avoiding real-life dining experiences. At least the new Cracker Barrel logo is honest about one thing: the man in the chair is gone from their restaurant. READ MORE from Julianna Frieman: CALIFORNIA’S CAPSLOCK CRUSADER NFL Tries Male Cheerleaders. That’s the Left’s Plan to Win Back Men? Why Is Every Brand Suddenly Acting Like a Taylor Swift Superfan? Julianna Frieman is a writer based in North Carolina. She received her bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She is pursuing her master’s degree in Communications (Digital Strategy) at the University of Florida. Her work has been published by the Daily Caller, The American Spectator, and The Federalist. Follow her on X at @juliannafrieman.

As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, we must never forget those responsible for igniting that supreme example of human aggression and suffering. Conventional histories point to Japan’s aggression in East Asia and its attacks at Pearl Harbor and elsewhere on December 7, 1941, and Germany’s aggression in central and eastern Europe, culminating in its invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. Often overlooked or downplayed, however, is Soviet leader Josef Stalin’s role in engulfing the world in total war. On August 23, 1939, Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop negotiated the Nazi–Soviet non-aggression pact (which was actually signed at 2:00 am on August 24th after more than 10 hours of talks), whereby the two totalitarian powers agreed to start the European phase of the Second World War. August 23, 1939, like December 7, 1941, is a date that should live in infamy. Throughout much of 1939, British diplomats had made approaches to the Soviet Union in an effort to form a coalition of powers against Germany. Germany, meanwhile, had entered talks with Japan, which had engaged in border conflicts with Soviet forces as early as May 1939. In mid-August of that year, Germany and the Soviet Union opened political discussions on the future of Eastern Europe. It soon evolved into proposals for a non-aggression pact that included economic clauses, agreements to exchange domestic political dissenters, and the geopolitical division of Eastern Europe. The Pact opened the way for both countries to invade and divide up Poland. The Pact opened the way for both countries to invade and divide up Poland. Germany invaded on September 1, 1939, while Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland on September 17, 1939. Two days later, in Best-Litovsk, the Hammer and Sickle flew alongside the Swastika as a symbol of the fourth partition of Poland. The Pact also enabled Stalin to deal more safely with Japan. After the signing of the Pact, Soviet forces under the command of Gen. Georgy Zhukov defeated Japanese forces near the Mongolian border. The Pact’s “secret” clauses placed the Baltic States, Finland, and Bessarabia in Stalin’s sphere of influence. The Soviets occupied and subsequently annexed the Baltic states and invaded Finland in 1940. As Paul Johnson noted in Modern Times, the Nazi–Soviet Pact “was a simple aggression pact against Poland.” In the early morning hours in the Kremlin after the signing of the Pact, Johnson wrote, the room “resembled nothing so much as a congregation of rival gangsters, who had fought each other before, and might do so again, but were essentially in the same racket.” Stalin agreed to fuel Hitler’s war machine with raw materials: oil, tin, copper, zinc, rubber, iron ore, manganese, cotton, and grain. Stalin also ordered his subservient communist parties throughout the world to reverse their anti-Nazi positions and to sabotage the war efforts of Germany’s enemies. (RELATED: Harry Truman at Potsdam — As Naïve As FDR) For Poland, the August 23rd Pact began its 50-year descent into the Hell of totalitarian despotism under Nazi and Soviet rule. Poles (and Jews) filled Hitler’s death camps and slave labor camps, and Stalin’s Gulag. Nikolai Tolstoy, in his book Stalin’s Secret War, called the August 23rd agreement the “pact of blood.” A proper remembrance of August 23, 1939, must include a recognition that it was Hitler and Stalin who started the European phase of the Second World War. The man whom Franklin Roosevelt referred to as “Uncle Joe Stalin” was Hitler’s accomplice in setting Europe ablaze. And when that terrible war was over and Hitler was dead, Stalin started the Cold War, which claimed countless lives in wars in China, Korea, and Vietnam, and which spread communist repression throughout Eastern Europe, East and Southeast Asia, parts of Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, Central America, and elsewhere. August 23, 1939 — a day of infamy, indeed. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: The Organizer of Victory: Frank S. Meyer Watch How the Deep State Took Down Richard Nixon Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Man Who Ended the War

by Mac Slavo, SHTF Plan: Israel has begun its offensive, designed to take over Gaza City. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told the military to decrease the time to defeat Hamas after his plans for military control were approved. Netanyahu later said that he had ordered the military to “shorten the timelines for seizing the […]

by John Binder, Breitbart: President Donald Trump’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has initiated deportation proceedings of tens of thousands of illegal aliens who had been left in legal limbo by former President Joe Biden’s administration, Breitbart News has exclusively learned. Notices to Appear (NTAs) are charging documents that instruct an illegal alien […]