Back to the Future: A Pro-Family, Responsible Technology, Sexual Morality Parable

One of the great things about parables is that they speak to what our God-given DNA already knows. We can’t tell why we love them so much, but we know they can speak to us at levels that for whatever reason we can’t articulate. And I fully expect Universal to pull this movie, and for YouTube to censor the Back to the Future movie as a result of this post, because they are threatened by the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the Back to the Future parable.

Today, I want to write about the divine parable that is Back to the Future.

YouTube censored a video which I called “A Cure for Homosexuality,” citing its policy against hate speech. I posted the picture of YouTube’s warnings to me in a previous video.

Basically, media works something like this, as a business: the more miserable, the more failed the American people, the more money media can make off us. Media profiteers from prolonged American suffering; and the media as we know it today, specifically film, was invented by the Russians to program their own people into submission, and to prevent us from thinking independently. This is why America’s unions, including our government school unions, love Hollywood so much: because unions also got their start with communism, as Walt Disney himself once testified before Congress.

But this isn’t a blog post about Walt Disney, or even the generalities about the prolonged suffering of the American people at the hands of communist-invented film as it continues to exist today.

Jesus spoke in parables, which is why I’ve written a screenplay. Back to the Future is one of the greatest parables of our age, and I’m here to break it down for you. This is, essentially, a Sunday Sermon for a secular America, which explains why all of us are in big, big trouble if we keep acting the way that we do.

All Sexual Sin Is Related

It was once common knowledge that promiscuous behavior goes hand in hand with homosexuality, incest, and the like. All of these things have in common that they are God’s plan for sexuality broken. And so if you’re not in a lifelong monogamous relationship or headed progressively toward one, you’re on a collision course with homosexuality.

This is why, in the Back to the Future deleted scene, Marty discusses the possibility of his planned incestuous encounter leading to homosexuality. Google is trying to block the deleted scene, so good luck finding it. Writers Gale and Zemeckis, I can only imagine, must have understood concretely all of this when designing the script, otherwise, who would make something this bold and insane? Although with Universal’s “The Hunt,” which you know somebody is going to leak, about gunning down Trump supporters, I suppose stranger things have happened.

Marty Conspires With His Mother Against His Father

Jordan Peterson talks about the Oedipal complex in which the boy competes with his father for the affections of his mother. Granted, Freud, who initially came up with this distillation of popular mythology, merely indicated its existence and scared the hell out of humanity with it, but Freud didn’t fully flesh out why it is so dangerous, or even that it is dangerous. Probably because Freud aimed to create a “secular priesthood” by beginning his practice on Easter Sunday.

In any event, if you want to create a mama’s boy that men will not respect, of the sort that the homosexuals on Broadway are promoting with this disgusting “Dear Evan Hansen” thing, mainly because sexual perverts like to commiserate together and not get help for their pathology which everybody is so proud of today –

If you want to create a mama’s boy, the best way to do so, per John Eldridge, Wild at Heart and many other man-gurus I have studied over the years, the best way to create a wussy is to tramautize a young boy when he is in the infant stage, where he undergoes a natural attraction to his mother. Healthy boys grow past this appropriately by an age psychologists are better at noting than I am. But the mama’s boy, the homosexual-to-be, never grows past this stage.

Going back to Wild at Heart, the boy mired in the Oedipal complex illustrated in Back to the Future, never is able to properly identify with his father, per the natural course of healthy family relationships. Why?

Well, in the case of one George McFly, McFly never received good training or parenting himself. That key piece of hope was missing. George McFly was never told what a stranger – whom we might regard today as a total sicko thanks to television influence — the good Doctor Emmett Brown. Emmett Brown instructs Marty, in Brown’s eternal wisdom, that you can do anything you set your mind to, the ultimate man-wisdom. And Marty’s sharing this ethos with George McFly, this piece of critical life advice George would otherwise have been too mired in The Honeymooners and comic books (Cough! Marvel idiocy) to absorb – this piece of advice is what changes the course of history and turns a failure George McFly, and perhaps generations following, into successes rather than failures. And by the way, I’m ignoring the rest of the trilogy including the sequel, which was made rather hastilly and even clashes a bit with the original. Let’s keep it simple by focusing on the perennial original favorite, which America is still obsessed with all these years later, and which has been preserved in the Library of Congress for its obvious impact, and a very good one, may I say.

Back to the Future is overtly pro-family, in its rightfully nostalgic portrayal of those values, and that essential human nature that in the 60s, a girl wasn’t afraid to state outloud. “I think a man should be able to protect the woman he loves.” All girls believe this today, even if they’re not allowed to express this fundamental human truth and feminine need, as it is buried in years of repressive media scare tactic-fear censorship, combined with hormonal birth control influence. Back to the Future provides a cultural context which expresses what is really on the feminine soul everywhere, even if girls aren’t allowed to say it. This is why a Fox and Friends anchorette recently said she wanted a Delorean to go back in time, citing the movie. So if anything, it’s our media-induced self-censorship psychosis which is “repressing” the human truth until it explodes in more conspicuous ways, like the recent shootings, which the media in turn profits from and uses as a defense of its continued fear-mongering. But this is a post about Back to the Future, not media fear-mongering.

Back to the Future as a Divine Parable

Humanity’s Tendency Toward Reckless Use of Technology in Back To The Future

Even though Back to the Future is overtly pro-family, and pro-America, what it doesn’t say is far more powerful than what it does say. Because it speaks to our hearts a fundamental truth about the dangers that we are headed for as a result of the misuse of the technological tools we’ve invented as a culture.

Doc Brown is definitely obsessed with the unintentional side effects of the technology he has invented. Before James Cameron’s idiotic Avatar eye-candy, he created a similar movie that coincidentally, along with Back to the Future, because two of Universal Studios Resort’s most popular attractions when the theme park opened. Both Back to the Future and Cameron’s Terminator series were obsessed with the notion of our misuse of technology being cataclysmic, perhaps in the wake of the Cold War which were a part of these 80’s movies immediate cultural context of. Hence, Marshall McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message.” The implicit, assumed use of technology, the way technology insinuates itself by tricking the human mind, is ultimately more important than the actual verbiage or explicit message being communicated on any given medium. If that sounds high fallutin or too technical, don’t worry, you don’t need to understand it to get the rest of this article.

Sexual Immorality in Back To The Future

Many today who analyze Back to the Future think Marty doesn’t undergo any growth throughout the movie. But he does. So, let me kind of break it down and then try to explain it later, in terms I have been able to articulate and thus recognize largely thanks to Jordan Peterson’s lecture series. and it all comes down to the Oedipal complex, that dirty thing Freud seemed to discover but not offer any useful help in combatting. Jordan Peterson doesn’t really offer a solution to it either, except an implicit – “Don’t do it.” What Jordan Peterson does do in his lectures is he explains exactly the subconsious struggle Marty McFly overcomes in Back to the future, and then embarks on a tremendous journey to use technology to reverse.

The Modern Incestuous American Culture

One of the side-effects of Single-Mom American culture, one that in separate articles I argue was created by artificial, irresponsible technical influence, namely from birth control and media(another article entirely) –

One of the side effects of “single mom” American culture is that necessarily, it creates an Oedipal situation in which the male child necessarily, in Jordan Peterson’s keenly articulated words, conspires with the mother against the father. After all, the father is absent, and so, how can, say a male child identify with a father who isn’t there? The young boy must, necessarily, agree with the only person caring for him, his mother, and even identify with the mother, absent a role model of “You can do anything you set your mind to.” Why can’t a mother convey this? Well, as John Eldridge puts it, only masculinity can bestow masculinity. Again, a woman can try to be a mother and a father, but then she ends up literally acting like a man in order to do this, which brings on a slew of its own perversions.

Of course, if we’re honest, we observe this in the “Mama’s boy” phenomenon. Nobody respects a man who doesn’t progress past that infantile stage, hence the prolonged adolescence which is the domain of those weird, weak-minded fatherless millennials.

Back To The Future’s Solution

Back to the Future offers a kind of solution, or “wish fulfillment” that, of course none of us have, in order to give Marty a father who has some tecticular fortitude.

Doc Brown advises Marty with the advice, and that masculine way, that his natural father George doesn’t have, hence George and the whole line of McFly’s being slackers. Marty breaks the cycle, but it takes – well, it takes the real-life equivalent of a miracle.

The paradox about trying to fix your father if you’re a male, or even a female, who you know is a slacker, is that it necessarily implies that you have to disrespect your father in a fundamental way. Say your dad is a drunk, and despite your pleadings with him to stop beating his wife, he keeps doing so, something like that. Well, you can’t spank your father. You can’t force your father to man up.

Why not? Well, because if you essentially call your father a loser and tell him to stop being a loser, it necessarily almost implies that you are a loser.

So – who can make your father not a loser? Well, if Christians are right, and there is a God, then that God would be the only hypothetical being who could. Why? Because God is above your father. At the very least, God transcends time and space. Hence – the good Doc Brown who provides not only hope and encouragement to Marty “You can do anything you set your mind to,” Doc Brown also provides a miraculous way to go back in time, to break the slacker cycle of hopelessly effeminate pushover McFly’s.

Back to the Future Reverses the Oedipal Complex

How does Back to the Future act out a reversal of the Oedipal complex? Well, in a very concrete manner, Back to the Future reverses it. How so? Well, if Jordan Peterson describes the Oedipal Complex as the mother conspiring with the son to rebel against the discipline of his father — Back to the Future provides the polar opposite roadmap. George McFly instead conspires with his father to seduce his mother. And very conveniently, Marty McFly also demonstrates to his mother in a staggeringly painful way that still makes us all cringe — that if she were of right mind, she really doesn’t want the easy prey that the original, unreformed George McFly was when she saved him in what the good God-figure Doc Brown rightly diagnoses as a “Florence Nightingale complex.

To sum, Back to the Future uses the poetic device of a Delorean — which Americans have really misused under the influence of the car companies’ advertising propaganda, as a kind of false success symbol. This is why it used to be that middle-aged men hitting a “mid-life” crisis would buy convertibles. Why? Because for the first generation of mass car buyers, the car was really a status symbol. Americans bought the television-advertised lie that owning a car is success itself.

It’s easy to get caught up in the sexual angle of this piece, as America is surrounded by pornography in some form in the InfoBabe phenomenon and so many others.

But we must not allow this aspect of technology’s trickery, the fruits of it advertising Cokes besides attractive girls and the like (Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath) to dupe us into thinking that this is primarily a sexual problem. America’s overstimulated, misconditioned libido is merely a side effect of the central problem.

The reason that Back to the Future is such a morally on-point movie, perhaps more important than any sermon I have heard at any church, is because it helps to treat the primary cause of American misery. And coincidentally, I believe Back to the Future has saved more marriages than anything to come out of Sherwood Baptist Church for this reason.

Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis, just like the writers of Columbo, are fine, upstanding, morally solid men to whom American society owes a great deal of respect for owning their masculinity and confronting some of the most dirty problems that our culture faces and drawing order out of the chaos we find ourselves mired in today.

Apart from all the sensationalism that led even Lorraine Actress — not actor but actress Lea Thomson to suggest that Back to the Future was a dirty film – it isn’t a dirty film. It’s a reminder of what’s human in all of us, and a struggle that America has been facing since the advent of broadcast. As the good Doc Brown God-figure says, “No wonder your president is an actor. He’s got to look good on television.” How would Doc Brown react to cell phone cameras and YouTube videos?

Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis are perhaps the most important people in this century, along with Stephen Spielberg, who chose to direct the film, because they chose as their vehicle for conveying a painstaking truth that Americans desperately need to hear, a car. What’s a car? Well, just like media, the automobile is, as all of us technological determinists are painfully aware of, perhaps the invention, as implemented by Henry Ford, which has had the most straining effects on the American family, and thus the core of our existence.

In Hollywood’s unfeeling, “Zombies Meets X-Men” production line of vomit sequel and reboot-culture, a symptom of a total and degenerate lack of creativity, Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis’ Back to the Future stands against what television would have had a nation believe was a totally innocent invention. They poke fun at the sitcom, specifically The HoneyMooners. Jackie Gleason was a strange and perverted, licentious character, to be sure. The movie opens with what – a FakeNews anchor; and marvelously, Stephen Spielberg’s opening imagery of the clock itself, perhaps the invention even pre-dating the automobile in its fundamental warping of humanity’s perception of not only time and space (Longitude, Sobel; Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death.) In the days before cell phones, psychologists determined that people would check their watches as many as 60 times a day, just to draw a parallel between clocks and our cell phones. I can’t develop that fully here, but you get the idea.

So Bob Gale and Rob Zemeckis took a symbol that too many insane males idolize to the level of higher than their families, a car, and they reinvented the auto, they essentially showed us what a car would really have to be to live up to the propaganda myth that television had made it out to be: a vehicle to go back in time and apply hindsight to the errors of the past in order to disrupt and correct generational curses.

Doc Brown approaches this prospect with utmost caution, but in the end, both he and his disciple Marty use technology to disrupt the future for the better, as a byproduct of their extreme caution and humility in the face of humanity-altering technological invention.

Conclusion: Irresponsible Technology Profiteering and Sexual Immorality

So – why contain two ostensibly unrelated concepts in the same parable? What in the world does irresponsible technology use have to do with the kind of sexual immorality which can incestuously and unnaturally turn a man against his father?

Lots of angles, of course, can be speculated to answer that question, from again, hormonal birth control to the sitcom buffoonery that more often than not paints the man of the house as a childish baby, kind of like today’s FakeNews loves to caricature our President. But it’s poor strategy to demean one’s leader, and ultimately self-defeating. It’s a poor strategy that one adopts only when thinking illogically; and one often thinks illogically when consuming massive amounts of, well technologically, assembly-line manufactured unnatural sugary sweets.

My deduction from years of working in the FakeNews, and reached in agreement with the great thinkers I would point you to here, like my late friend Chuck Colson, is that the misuse of technology to promote a false gospel of effortless, instant gratification – the message which is the medium (to reference McLuhan’s famous mantra “the medium is the message”) — is that irresponsible people use technology to profit from those tricked into thinking that the technology is helping them. And the result, of course, is a total breakdown of moral constitution of the individual being duped by the technology, moreso than any other media technology, in the form of FakeNews, sitcoms, and now so-called “social media” which is really anti-social.

Thus, it is the misuse of media profiteers, who use film as it exists today, invented by the Russians to manipulate and propagandize their audience, to program their audience – which leads to all manner of immorality by training a weak-minded individual where strong, rugged Americans once existed.

In other words, television, media, and “social media” of all sorts today is directly, if gradually, responsible, for the breakdown of all good human qualities, including sexual integrity and the very strong bonds that tie family and society together. It is misuse of, say, advertising of the car by equating it with successful mating (Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath); Media appropriating public discourse (Postman, AOTD) and the like which is ruining us as a civilization. Technological misuse is destroying us. As Jordan Peterson puts it, we’re developing new technology faster than we can develop the moral system, or the humility, to figure out how we should properly use it. The Nuclear Bomb/H-Bomb, atom bomb, initially a major part of the Back to the Future story until it was replaced with the Clock Tower likely for narrative consistency; or perhaps audience sensitivity, is perhaps the most startling example of technology which might have literally destroyed all of us if not handled properly and deliberately. Universal, of course, implemented the atom bomb symbolism in the more defeatist, James Cameron-style, anti-human tragic narrative in Terminator. That James Cameron really is anti-human, but that’s besides the point.

This idea, that somehow, the very technology which advertises itself as a push-button solution with no consequences ruining us through immorality – to tie the technological irresponsibility to the incest in Back to the Future – Well, that’s a concept, the tie between technological haste and sexual immorality, that I think should give us all pause.