Category: Analysis

The Long-term Consequences of Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is a philosophical construct in which there are no objective moral truths. There are only subjective truths that are shaped by a society’s hierarchy of authority, cultural norms, and myriad feelings on the part of its individual members.

In this article, I will attempt to give readers some background knowledge about:

– Moral relativism;

– The manner in which the construct has in a major way supplanted our nation’s long-standing moral framework;

– And the danger that moral relativism continues to pose for our society should we fail to reverse course.

In the United States, the concept of moral relativism first emerged within our universities. Then slowly but steadily it seeped into our governmental structure and our culture at large.

Its origin can be traced to the works of anthropologist Franz Boas and his students at Columbia University. Boas set out to destroy the concept of ranked cultures, i.e., that some cultures can be assigned higher or lower rankings than those of others.

Boaz and company insisted that each culture must be evaluated on its own terms and is never to be judged by external standards.

This cultural relativism quickly metamorphosed into moral relativism, meaning that no culture’s moral system should ever be assigned a higher or lower ranking than that of another.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Boaz’s students (which included cultural anthropologists Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict) turned moral relativism into a popular doctrine. By the 1960s, the construct had handily made its way into the popular culture.

The relativistic views of Mead and Benedict were routinely cited as a means in which to argue that the acceptable standards of the times were, in actuality, just one cultural option among many.

By the 1970s, largely due to the implementation of multicultural education, the idea was put forth that diverse cultures have diverse moral frameworks, and imposing one group’s values on another is, in essence, a form of oppression.

So here is where we find ourselves today.

What started out as an obscure academic theory is currently the predominant operating ideology of many who hold the reins of power in our country.

Moral relativism was pushed upon our society, and it slowly and insidiously demolished a major portion of our shared moral framework.

It promises liberation but delivers anarchy.

It tells each and every individual that it is perfectly acceptable to make up your own personal rules.

It obliterates the lines between right and wrong, allowing for extremism to be justified and enabling those who wish to harm others to rationalize their unthinkable actions.

Is it any wonder that after decades of moral relativism imperatives, our society is no longer able to agree on the basic definitions of right and wrong?

For many of us it is painfully apparent that we are now living through the wretched fallout of relativistic thinking as it pertains to society’s moral code.

As we have seen, moral relativism all too frequently leads to deadly consequences.

Through tear-stained eyes we saw waves of unspeakable violence crash from shore to shore. And even as we watched we knew in our hearts the tempest was in no way over.

When a society accepts the idea that “truth” is whatever feels authentic, objective standards cease to exist. If everything is permissible, nothing is protected.

Without a common moral foundation, there is no debate over the best means to shared ends. There is only a raw power struggle in which violence is acceptable and might makes right.

Western civilization was built on the conviction that certain truths are self-evident; that human beings are created equal in dignity, not outcome; that rights come from God rather than government’s whim; and that marriage and family are society’s cornerstones.

Many have abandoned these shared principles in favor of the shifting sands of “my own truth.” But a society that cannot agree on what is virtue and vice is one that is hurtling toward collapse.

What’s the antidote to moral relativism? Well, for starters, cooler heads, clearer thinking, and caring attitudes.

If our nation is ever to regain its moral footing, it is essential that our society return to the values that carried us through for centuries.

But here’s the catch. In order for this to occur, our people have to really want it.

The question is, Do enough of us?

The answer determines our destiny.

The Ashes of the California Wildfires

On the morning of January 7, 2025, a brush fire in the hills above Los Angeles quickly transformed into an inferno.

Tens of thousands of people were evacuated, while hundreds of thousands were on pins and needles as they awaited the impending evacuation orders.

The first fire would come to be known as the Palisades Fire.

A few hours later the Eaton Fire would ignite in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.

Later in the night the Hurst Fire would erupt in the northern San Fernando Valley.

The following morning the Woodley Fire would emerge in the central San Fernando Valley.

And Los Angeles hadn’t seen the last of the fires yet.

Needless to say, numerous homes burned to the ground. Many people suffered injuries. And some individuals tragically lost their lives.

Two prominent leaders have dared to speak bluntly about the contributing causes of the calamity that occurred in Los Angeles: former LA mayoral candidate Rick Caruso and President elect Donald Trump.

— Caruso is a former commissioner for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. He is also the owner of the Palisades Village Mall, located in the heart of the community that has been decimated by the wildfires.

Caruso’s daughter’s home was destroyed in the blaze, and he himself was evacuated from his home. As the flames were breaking out in his beloved neighborhood, he noticed something that defied comprehension. The fire hydrants were devoid of even a drop of water.

“There’s no water in the fire hydrants,” Caruso exclaimed, his voice revealing his exasperation.

“This is a window into a systemic problem of the city,” he said.

“The real issue to me here is two-fold. We’ve had decades to remove the brush in these hills…and the second is, we’ve got to have water. My understanding is the reservoir was not refilled in time…to keep the hydrants going…”

— President elect Trump had previously warned California Gov. Gavin Newsom that he needed to better manage the state’s forests in order to prevent wildfires.

In 2018, then-President Trump chastised Newsom over the burned-out remains of the town of Paradise.

“You’ve got to take care of…the floors of the forests,” Trump said.

Two years later Trump spoke out again after a new round of fires had inflicted severe harm on California. He talked about cleaning the forest floors, removing leaves and fallen trees, and preventing the igniting of the brush and forest debris.

The president elect recently used a post on X to comment on the current fires in Los Angeles.

“There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor,” he posted.

He also used his Truth Social account to wake up Gov. Newsom, writing, “…I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!”

Angelinos are far from happy with their government leaders.

— Despite fire warnings, Mayor Karen Bass flew to Africa to attend Ghana’s presidential inauguration on the day that the fire broke out; this after meteorologists warned that a “recipe for fire” was on track to strike LA.

— LA city officials reportedly failed to cut off electricity to power lines. Video footage from the Palisades Fire showed sparks flying as power lines came down.

— Officials in Los Angeles County had reportedly refused to refill reservoirs with the water that would ultimately be needed to flow to fire hydrants.

More information about the catastrophic failures of leadership will no doubt emerge in the coming days.

Out here in California, prayer is all we have. And yet it’s everything.

If your heart is able, please join in prayer for safety, solace, and strength for the people of the City of Angels.

May God’s blessings flow from the ashes.

“I will give them a crown to replace their ashes, and the oil of gladness to replace their sorrow, and clothes of praise to replace their spirit of sadness.” (Isaiah 61:3)

Trump’s Free Speech Blueprint

So much has taken place over the last four years that Americans across the board have found objectionable.

One of the starkest examples may be what happened to our constitutional right to free speech.

Way too many individuals on social media found themselves in situations in which they were censored, persecuted, and punished over statements made on forums that were formerly thought to be free-wielding platforms.

Editorial pieces with “unapproved” content were shelved by newspapers and kept from public view.

Cable TV anchors heard whispers from producers, instructing them to change subjects should conversations happen to veer into “taboo” territory.

Public figures, which included political candidates, were vilified for bringing up “inconvenient” truths.

Labels, including “conspiracy theorist,” “extremist,” “wingnut,” and worse, were slapped on many who refused to wear the muzzle, thereby harming their reputations while simultaneously silencing them.

I could go on, but sadly the list seems endless.

Yes, free expression took a major hit, but hope is truly on the horizon, thanks to President elect Donald J. Trump, his close-knit circle, loyal supporters, and slew of newfound like-minded influential allies, including Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, and Joe Rogan, to name a few.

Uber entrepreneur and “Dark MAGA” creator Musk recently shared a video that had been posted a while back. It features President elect Trump setting forth his plan to safeguard and restore free speech if (and now when) he assumes office.

In the video, he elaborates on the indispensable nature of free speech to our nation’s constitutional values, stating, “If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country.”

He offers the additional warning that if freedom of expression were to continue to erode, other indispensable rights would fall like “dominoes.”

President elect Trump’s plans to restore First Amendment freedoms involve a number of common sense steps, including the following:

-The issuing of an executive order banning any federal department or agency from colluding with outside organizations to censor the speech of Americans.

-A prohibition on government money being used to label any domestic speech as “misinformation” or “disinformation.”

-A review of the federal workforce to identify and replace those involved in censoring speech.

-An effort to seek the reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently provides immunity for tech platforms. Modification would include placing limits on the power of tech companies to arbitrarily restrict lawful speech.

-The stopping of funding organizations that contribute to censorship, including colleges and universities that promote or engage in inappropriate or unlawful censorship.

-The creation of a “Digital Bill of Rights” that would ensure citizens have due process, that users are informed when their content is removed, that individuals are given clear reasons for decisions made, and that the right to appeal is in place, making judicial review and approval a prerequisite for the removal of certain online content.

Such policies will go a long way toward restoring our constitutional right to free speech.

Interestingly, on the day before the 2024 presidential election, two powerful media figures sat down for a conversation about the issues at stake in the then-looming election.

Musk spoke with Rogan.

After praising Musk for his purchase of Twitter, Rogan said, “I’m not exaggerating when I say you changed the course of history.”

The preeminent podcaster was talking about free expression.

Rogan explained that censorship and de-platforming by social media had severely impeded free speech across the U.S. landscape.

“We were headed down a path of unprecedented censorship and narrative control,” Rogan said to Musk.

What he was referring to is the notion that for speech to be free and remain an existing fundamental right, it must be free from government interference and corporate censorship.

The American notion of freedom cannot exist without these guardrails.

In great part, the understanding of the value of free speech to liberty and the commitment to end censorship have led to the formation of a powerful coalition of superheroes from all sides of the political aisle.

This coalition greatly contributed to the electoral earthquake that just occurred in our country.

Get ready to once again be able to agree and/or disagree to our hearts’ content.

And in between discussions and debates, breathe in the sweet air of free speech.

The American Culture and the Overton Window

Are you feeling like the whole world’s gone crazy?

You’re not alone.

So many changes in such a short time and most of the changes don’t seem to have been for the good.

In America, a sizable number of our governmental, institutional, corporate, media, and even religious figures have been operating at warp speed to implement changes within society.

From the classroom to the courtroom to the boardroom and beyond, fundamental philosophy has been supplanted, institutional policy altered, and underlying goals redesigned.

It seems as though the changes that have occurred have impacted each and every facet of our lives. As a result, many of us are suffering, often silently, in mind and in spirit.

In this article I wish to focus on the effect that all of the changes have had specifically on the American culture, changes that a major portion of the population finds unacceptable, and at times downright heartbreaking.

The culture of a nation is generally comprised of a common set of beliefs, values, and behaviors. This common set acts as a kind of a glue that binds people together and holds them together through the best and the worst of times and circumstances.

Like many of you, I have spent plenty of sleepless nights trying to figure out what is happening to me personally as well as what is happening to America and to our people.

In my assessment, America’s culture has undergone an extensive transformation. The transformation is still ongoing, though, so it is difficult to see exactly what the country is transforming into.

The nation, as well as the culture that binds us together, appears to be more and more divided. This is extremely serious because our cultural bond is being tested to its limits.

There is a concept called the “Overton window” that may provide some insight into what has transpired.

The term Overton window is named after policy analyst Joseph Overton.

In the 1990s, Overton found a way of determining the viability of a given idea when presented to a population.

Much like a kitchen window, there are limits as to what can be viewed when one is peering through it.

Picture this if you will:

The Overton window presents ideas on the other side of the glass. But there are limits to the range of ideas that can be, and are, featured at any given point in time.

The culture, with its set of beliefs, values, and behaviors in common, is theoretically peering through the Overton window. It is also reacting to what it sees.

Overton found that the viability of an idea is dependent on where it falls within a range of acceptability to people.

There are powers that be who are working to push ideas beyond the range that the present culture finds acceptable.

For a large number of people, this is causing discomfort, confusion, and oftentimes distress.

For others, especially those who align with the powers that be, the ideas are seen as progress.

The American culture is a tolerant one. It is also one that seeks harmony. And so it is that our people who are negatively affected by the changes that have been implemented so far have arrived at the place of unwilling acceptance.

It is here when another change of perspective is likely to occur, courtesy of the powers that be.

The Overton window shifts.

When the Overton window moves, that which was formerly unthinkable may not only become acceptable, it may also become the new standard.

There are ongoing debates as to whether the Overton window has shifted to the left or to the right politically.

To me, the two things that matter most are the extent to which the window has shifted culturally, and, when it moves again, whether we will be able to put the scattered pieces back together.

Cultural Marxism Being Used in Teacher Hiring

Cultural Marxism is a far-left intellectual movement that seeks to systematically destabilize society from within.

For a considerable length of time now those who subscribe to this ideology have been hard at work materially altering the values of the Western World, with a particular emphasis on values conveyed in society’s schools.

Some in the establishment media and institutional elite make the assertion that Cultural Marxism doesn’t even exist.

So what’s in a name? Well in this case, it’s a lack of truth in labeling.

Karl Marx, co-author of The Communist Manifesto, was of the political philosophy that human society develops through class conflict. The conflict takes place between the ruling class that controls the means of production and the working class that facilitates the production.

Marx espoused that a capitalist system eventually self-destructs, and communism is the ultimate governmental answer.

When World War I ended, some Marxist thinkers came to believe that in trying to achieve communist goals, Marx hadn’t really paid close enough attention to the need to infiltrate culture.

There was an influential group of European thinkers that methodically carried out an assault on the foundational pillars of society: religion, patriotism, marriage, family, and the criminal justice system.

Cultural Marxism adopted the viewpoint that traditional culture is a source of oppression and existing conventions, institutions, and even history must be torn down in order to rebuild a society with new Marxist structures.

More contemporary Cultural Marxism primarily tries to destroy the notion of absolute truth and replace it with relativism, political correctness, multiculturalism, and communist revolutionary theory.

We are at a point in our society where this replacement ideology has saturated our colleges and universities. Now there is quite a bit of evidence that in large part it has made its way to the elementary and high school levels of education as well.

Parents have disturbingly discovered that the Cultural Marxist concepts of “systemic racism” and “unconscious bias” are embedded in much of the school curricula, oftentimes under the label of DEI, which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

One of the ways in which the far-left has increased and actually solidified the presence of Cultural Marxism in educational institutions is through the screening process for prospective K-12 hires.

Public school districts across the country are using a screening process for potential teachers that is apparently designed to ensure that future educators will be singularly aligned with Cultural Marxist ideology.

The National Opportunity Project (NOP), a nonprofit government watchdog and educational organization, has produced the first survey and overview of the DEI-model hiring process in K-12 education, with nearly 70 public schools participating.

The NOP found countless examples of the restrictive underlying ideology in the teacher hiring process.

Unfortunately, the notion of seeking out the most qualified candidates for open teaching positions appears to be taking a back seat. Instead would-be teachers are being evaluated on whether or not they adhere to desired DEI tenets.

For example, districts are using politically loaded language within job postings, seeking candidates who “demonstrate the qualities of an equity-literate educator” or who “demonstrate a commitment to diversity and recognized equity and inclusivity.”

Across the nation public school job postings are setting forth ideological pre-requisites that are rooted in Cultural Marxism.

Here is a sampling of some of the school districts that are apparently all-in with the ideology, along with some of the language that is being utilized:

–Evanston Township High School District 202 is seeking those applicants who demonstrate a commitment to “social justice” and “equity.”

–Denver Public Schools is looking for candidates who have an “anti-racist mindset” and will “work to dismantle systems of oppression and inequity.”

–The public school district in Washington, D.C. is recruiting teachers who are able to “define, understand, and promote equity” in order to “systematically interrupt institutional bias.”

–City Schools of Decatur, Georgia is looking to hire educators that are committed to “dismantling systemic racism and generating racial equity.”

In a similar vein, questions being posed during interviews appear to be attempting to screen candidates on the basis of their allegiance to DEI-Cultural Marxist concepts.

Here are some examples of such school districts, along with questions that are being employed:

–Virginia’s Loudoun County Public Schools asks prospective hires, “How would race and diversity impact your classroom?”

–Homewood-Flossmoor High School in Illinois asks candidates to “provide an example of how you have created equity in your classroom.”

–Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland inquires, “How do you ensure that student outcomes are not predictable by race, ethnicity, culture, gender, or sexual orientation?”

It is up to all of us to continue to monitor our local school districts and hold school administrators accountable with regard to the teacher selection process.

Yes, it’s one more thing to worry about and one more thing to have to contest.

But aren’t our children truly the best of what we’re all fighting for?

Children of the Lockdown

It’s been almost three and a half years since public health officials first urged the locking down of America in order to prevent the spread of a virus.

As talk of a possible repeat scenario grows louder, perhaps it might be prudent to stop and reflect on what we have gone through psychologically, socially, and emotionally, particularly our children.

When the lockdown was implemented, some prominent professionals questioned the policy. For doing so, they were maligned and sometimes even censored.

Dr. Martin Kulldorff (Harvard), Dr. Sunetra Gupta (Oxford), and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) are three highly qualified epidemiologists, who at a pivotal point in history came together to publish a document.

The document, titled the Great Barrington Declaration, made the case that lockdowns have a deleterious effect upon children. Additionally, an argument was made that denying children the opportunity to attend school was particularly harmful.

The scholars were subsequently disparaged by public officials and certain media figures, as if there were some kind of effort in place to avoid open debate of the document’s content.

In recent coverage of the “Twitter files,” journalist and former New York Times reporter Bari Weiss brought to light the story of Dr. Bhattacharya, whose social media accounts were systematically banned.

Evidently, the professor of health policy at Stanford University ended up becoming one of the victims of high-tech suppression.

Dr. Bhattacharya, who holds both an MD and PhD from Stanford, had published 135 articles in top peer-reviewed scientific journals of medicine, economics, health policy, epidemiology, statistics, law, and public health. The doctor was treated outrageously for having countered the lockdown narrative.

Weiss documented how Dr. Bhattacharya was attacked and censored for asserting that the lockdowns could cause harm to children.

“Still trying to process my emotions on learning that @twitter blacklisted me. The thought that will keep me up tonight: censorship of scientific discussion permitted policies like school closures & a generation of children were hurt,” the Stanford professor tweeted.

During a podcast, Dr. Bhattacharya also spoke of the cost to the children as a result of the lockdowns and school closings, calling them “devastating” and “almost unimaginable.”

He pointed to Sweden as a compelling case study.

“Sweden did better than most countries, certainly better than the United States, despite not putting in place school closures and a whole host of lockdown-related policies,” he said.

The doctor revealed that shortly after the Great Barrington Declaration had gained attention he received hate mail and death threats.

Time, of course, has passed, and although Dr. Bhattacharya’s ideas were once rejected and hidden away, data have been gathered, indicating he was correct.

Here’s a look at some additional studies:

— Nine researchers published a systematic review, using multiple databases from December 2019 to December 2020. The review is titled “Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health of children and adolescents: A systematic review of survey studies.”

It showed that the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of children and adolescents was multifaceted and substantial. Survey studies indicated that anxiety, depression, loneliness, stress, and tension were the most-observed symptoms of children and adolescents during this time period.

Thirty-five survey studies involving 65,508 participants, ages 4 to 19 years-old, revealed anxiety (28%), depression (23%), loneliness (5%), stress (5%), fear (5%), tension (3%), anger (3%), fatigue (3%), confusion (3%), and worry (3%) to be the most common mental health issues reported.

— Another recent study from the University of Virginia Health showed that suicide attempts among children (via overdose) rose sharply during the pandemic.

The rate of suicide attempts (via poisoning) reported to U.S. poison centers among children and adolescents ages 10 to 19 showed an increase of 30 percent during the year 2021, when compared to 2019.

2021 was the first full year of the pandemic and its attendant lockdowns. The rate of suspected attempts by intentional poisoning among children ages 10 to 12 showed an increase of 73 percent, when compared to the year 2019.

“These findings suggest that the mental health of children and adolescents might still be affected by the pandemic, raising concerns about long-term consequences, especially given that previous attempted suicide has been found to be the strongest predictor of subsequent death by suicide,” the researchers wrote.

— Boston Children Hospital epidemiologist Dr. Mainuna Majumder and colleagues assembled data from 14 states on suicides in 2020. Findings indicated that 10 to 19-year-olds accounted for a more significant share of suicides in 2020 than in prior years, with percentages going from 5.9 in 2015 through 2019 to 6.5 in 2020 (a statistically significant increase of 10 percent). The study appears in JAMA Pediatrics.

The two-year study period (spanning 2019 through 2020) looked at approximately 3,800 children, ages 4 to 18, who were admitted to inpatient units for mental health-related reasons. In the year prior to the pandemic, 50 percent of admitted patients had suicidal ideation or had made suicidal attempts. This figure jumped to 60 percent during the first year of the pandemic.

— A separate study by the communication charity I CAN asked primary and secondary school teachers across England, Scotland, and Wales about the impact of lockdowns on their pupils.

I CAN found over two-thirds (67 percent) of primary school teachers believe the children they teach had fallen behind in their speaking and/or understanding and were worried that these pupils would not be able to catch up.

The I CAN data indicated that 1.5 million children were having difficulties with speech and comprehension.

— Independent provider of mental health services Cygnet Health Care, which operates over 150 centers with more than 2,500 beds across the UK, recently provided important data regarding the mental health of children who had suffered lockdowns.

Data indicated referrals to Cygnet’s psychiatric intensive care units in its hospitals that treat children and adolescents had more than doubled between 2019 and 2022. Following the lockdowns, young people were referred for problems that included low mood, insomnia, stress, anxiety, anger, irritability, emotional exhaustion, depression, and post-traumatic stress symptoms.

— A recent study in the UK by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and University College London connected children’s social and emotional development with the lockdown-related employment status of their parents.

Forty-seven percent of parents reported that their children’s social and emotional skills had declined during the pandemic. Fifty-two percent of children 4 to 7 years-old experienced a decline in social and emotional skills, and 42 percent of 12-15 year-olds reported the same.

Proof of collateral damage to children due to lockdowns continues to surface. Still, many public health officials and politicians seem to be urging a revival of the lockdown policy.

In retrospect, the doctors and other professionals who were disparaged and/or censored were accurate in their assessments of the negative effects of lockdowns on school-aged children.

Millions of young people could have been spared the negative psychological, social, emotional, and academic ramifications of the lockdowns.

Heaven forbid that we have a repeat of this history.

Lessons on Communism from ‘Doctor Zhivago’

Artistic works oftentimes reflect the times in which they are created.

Music, books, films, and the like, particularly those that endure the test of time, may serve as vessels of information, entertainment, and enlightenment for a culture.

Some artistic works may reveal truths that governments with malicious intent would rather suppress.

“Doctor Zhivago” is a 1957 novel penned by Russian author Boris Pasternak.

Pasternak’s book made its debut on the big screen in 1965 under the same title. The film was produced by Carlo Ponti, directed by David Lean, and stars Omar Sharif, Julie Christie, and Geraldine Chaplin, among others.

The widely read best seller is actually one of the most famously censored pieces of literature.

The author embedded in his work the notion that every person is entitled to a private life and deserves respect as a human being. This was fundamentally irreconcilable with the communist maxim that the individual must be sacrificed to the collective.

Consequently, the book was banned in the old Soviet Union, and the movie was not allowed to be made there. Instead it was filmed mostly in Spain.

The then-Soviet government hid the book from the Russian people, because the “Doctor Zhivago” story explicitly reveals the dark truths of communist tyranny.

The communists censored anything that had the capacity to hinder their despotic drive for political power.

Like those who preceded them, the Soviet tyrants did nothing to restrict individuals that parroted the establishment narrative.

However, when it came to those whose speech constituted a threat to their power, they routinely demonized, silenced them, or worse.

According to a book by Peter Finn and Petra Couvée called “The Zhivago Affair,” Pasternak thought his novel would never be published in the old Soviet Union, because of the manner in which authorities viewed it. So the author gave the manuscript to an Italian publishing scout, which ultimately led to Pasternak’s book becoming a global best seller.

De-classified documents have revealed that, during the late 1950s, the CIA actually distributed copies of his novel to Soviet citizens in order to spread the word about communism’s inherent dangers.

Providentially, the movie became one of the top-grossing films of all time and ranks high on most of the lists of best movies ever made. In 1966 it was awarded five Oscars.

It is the backstory of “Doctor Zhivago,” though, that makes the book and film so notable and amazingly timely.

It tells the story of a Moscow physician-poet, who struggles to cope with the changing landscape of his homeland as a group of communist commissars literally take over the country.

The film stars Sharif in the title role, while Julie Christie portrays his love interest Larissa “Lara” Antipova.

“Doctor Zhivago” uses a flashback technique, with the main character’s half-brother narrating the tale of his search to find his niece, who is the daughter of Lara and Yuri.

Early in the movie young Yuri is orphaned. His only earthly possession is a Russian stringed instrument that he inherited, the balalaika, which weaves its way through the film’s musical score.

The youth is taken in by friends of his family, Alexander and Anna Gromeko, and is subsequently moved to Moscow.

He grows up to become a doctor and soon takes Tonya, daughter of the Gromekos, as his wife.

During World War I, Yuri provides medical care to soldiers fighting on the battlefield. Lara enlists as a nurse. She eventually encounters the love of her life.

For the next six months they serve together at a field hospital, while unrest foments in Russia, following the return of exiled Vladimir Lenin.

Yuri and Lara fall deeply in love. The doctor initially remains faithful to wife Tonya, but passions eventually prevail.

One particularly meaningful scene in the movie occurs after Russia exits WWI. Yuri returns to his Moscow home only to find that the residence has been taken over by the Soviet government and now houses a large group of strangers.

Yuri’s dream of a privately-owned home has vanished. Now a dozen other families live in the space that the good doctor once had for himself and his family.

The chairman of the residence committee, Comrade Kaprugina, tells Yuri, “There was living space for 13 families in this one house.”

“Yes,” Yuri says. “Yes, this is a better arrangement, comrades. More just.”

His words, of course, are a lie that he is forced to say out loud. No longer does he have control over who lives in what was once his home.

He knew his poems had been condemned. He also knew the sheer ruthlessness of his nation’s captors. Now he lives in a place where truth no longer is permitted to be spoken in public.

“Doctor Zhivago” is worth watching and re-watching, not only because it is a great movie, but because it pertains to the present in a way that aptly illustrates how top-down government control can so easily slip into full-blown communism.

The Russian revolution divided the populace, pitting neighbor against neighbor, poor against rich, rural against urban, faith-filled against secular, and so on.

Community organizers consolidated power and eventually seized total control.

Media outlets joined forces in protection of the almighty state, working undercover as allies of the government in the public indoctrination business.

Children in schools were propagandized too, and parental rights were methodically stripped away.

Hundreds of millions were deprived of the right to speak, worship, and travel freely.

Under communism and its other unholy titles, people the world over have been subjected to man-made famines, forced labor, deadly purges, show trials, extrajudicial executions, lethal gulags, and outright genocide.

The infamous track record of communism speaks for itself.

Americans used to fight against the political leviathan with everything in them, rushing to rescue citizens of other nations in peril as well.

In the end, we pray that we will still be able to say, individually and collectively, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” (2 Timothy 4:7)