I just saw Sean Hannity promoting this on TV show. As you'll see if you watch the trailer, this is clearly basing its analysis on The Fourth Turning.

http://generationzeromovie.com/

ABOUT THE FILM
The current economic crisis is not a failure of capitalism, but a failure of culture. Generation Zero explores the cultural roots of the global financial meltdown - beginning with the narcissism of the 1960's, spreading like a virus through the self-indulgent 90's, and exploding across the world in the present economic cataclysm.
Generation Zero goes beneath the shallow media headlines and talking head sound bites to get to the source of today's economic nightmare. With a cutting edge style and haunting imagery, this must see documentary will change everything you thought you knew about Wall Street and Washington.
Featuring experts, authors, and pundits from across the political spectrum, Generation Zero exposes the little told story of how the mindset of the baby boomers sowed the seeds of economic disaster that will be reaped by coming generations.

yeah, it definitely looks looks like something I'd be interested in checking out. I also noticed that John J. Xenakis, who occasionally posts on 4TF is part of the cast

Scroll down the cast , you'll see another handsome face. I was promised an invitation to the premiere, but it seems it happened in Nashville.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Scroll down the cast , you'll see another handsome face. I was promised an invitation to the premiere, but it seems it happened in Nashville.

how funny, I totally missed that! Neil as well

The more I learn about this, the more interesting it is. It was produced by Citizens United - the group that just won its case against McCain/Feingold before the Supreme Court, and it was premiered at the Tea Party convention. And I was unaware that people who post here are in it.

Depending on how much attention it ultimately gets, it could be a bit of a breakthrough into the "mainstream" for the S&H ideas. Hannity apparently has a special dedicated to it this weekend. Will have to try and catch it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The more I learn about this, the more interesting it is. It was produced by Citizens United - the group that just won its case against McCain/Feingold before the Supreme Court, and it was premiered at the Tea Party convention. And I was unaware that people who post here are in it.

Odd, one would think they'd be more sensitive about not offending their large boomer constituency.

Very exciting, I'll try to do my little marketing bit

I hope the conservative boomers don't come out unscathed. They've done a good job so far of controlling the propaganda, I'd say.

Hah the trailer is so over dramatic.

Still it looks pretty interesting.

Being born in 49 and having lived through this time, many of the more the liberal Boomers were the ones turning against greed and wealth while the conservative Boomers embraced it and attempted to gorge themselves upon it. I hope that difference is shown.

I haven't watched the trailer yet. I'm sure some of you are wondering what the hell I'm doing in there amidst such a gaggle of neocons and social conservatives, but Steve Bannen, the filmmaker, is a very intelligent guy who truly understands Strauss and Howe and certainly seemed to accept the idea that conservative Boomers had done at least as much damage as liberal ones. I repeatedly stressed, as I recall, that no one ever put the motto "If it feels good, do it" into practice more enthusiastically than President George W. Bush. Mr. Bannen tried very hard to get me to predict a huge war as part of the Crisis and I repeatedly refused. I suspect he had more luck with one or two other interviewees. I knew Neil was being interviewed, of course, but I had no idea about our old friend John X.

The trailer is awesome and I am so glad that Howe and Strauss's work is being explored but reading that cast list...

I am predicting Neil Howe and Xenakis's input will just be manipulated to support the point of view of the film - which as the above poster wrote: Support establishment Republicans, vote against Democrats.

An interesting cross section of conservatives in that list though especially surprising since a lot of them are apart of the guilty party that lead to the crisis... All they were missing were Paleocons.

Agreed. Nothing more to say than that.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The more I learn about this, the more interesting it is. It was produced by Citizens United - the group that just won its case against McCain/Feingold before the Supreme Court, and it was premiered at the Tea Party convention. And I was unaware that people who post here are in it.

Depending on how much attention it ultimately gets, it could be a bit of a breakthrough into the "mainstream" for the S&H ideas. Hannity apparently has a special dedicated to it this weekend. Will have to try and catch it.

This film is outstanding... A real eye-opener... Hannity special is on Tuesday Feb 23. Looking forward to it!

I am not sure what to think of this. Seeing the trailer makes me want to watch it, but looking at all of the neo-cons on the cast list is a big turn off to me.

Originally Posted by Wes84

I am not sure what to think of this. Seeing the trailer makes me want to watch it, but looking at all of the neo-cons on the cast list is a big turn off to me.

Neocons wanting to rewrite history as fast as they can. Of course they will blame others for their mistakes.

Considering the provenance and the heavy presence of right-wingers, I don't expect it to be neutral. I can just imagine the sorts of sacrifices called for and who makes them (lower real pay, longer hours, less economic security, more regimentation, harsher management, and higher taxes) -- and who must have "burdens" of taxation and regulation lifted on behalf of their pampered selves.

I agree. Its gonna be a freakin train wreck designed to brainwash people into thinking they have to give up on unions, good paying jobs, benefits, social security medicare and government programs which benefit them. And of course, there will be really good reasons to do all those things.

This is the early days of a war between the desire of the rich and heir corporate masters to return us to the Gilded Age and the common man to cling to the economic and social advances he had to fight for over the last century.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Considering the provenance and the heavy presence of right-wingers, I don't expect it to be neutral. I can just imagine the sorts of sacrifices called for and who makes them (lower real pay, longer hours, less economic security, more regimentation, harsher management, and higher taxes) -- and who must have "burdens" of taxation and regulation lifted on behalf of their pampered selves.

Based on what David said, I think this might be neo-con, round 2. They didn't scare us enough with Saddam (wimp) or Kim Jung Il (twerp), so they're going to use the theory to "prove" that <insert viable enemy threat - probably Iran or China> will attack us very soon ... with hundreds of nukes!!!!

That will justify the equivalent of Marshall law, with all the sacrifices listed above.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Based on what David said, I think this might be neo-con, round 2. They didn't scare us enough with Saddam (wimp) or Kim Jung Il (twerp), so they're going to use the theory to "prove" that <insert viable enemy threat - probably Iran or China> will attack us very soon ... with hundreds of nukes!!!!

That will justify the equivalent of Marshall law, with all the sacrifices listed above.

Folks, I think you will find you are mistaken. I have seen the trailer now (excellent) and had two more phone calls with the Director, Steve Bannen. Everyone who is seen it, such as a Daily Beast writer who covered the Tea party convention, agrees that it is not partisan and actually not prescriptive. It's essentially about how Boomers got us into this mess, particularly the financial mess, and I contributed PLENTY on that point in my interview as you can well imagine. Bannen is very bright. On the other hand, he, like Neil Howe, will be very unhappy if he dies without seeing some nukes go off in anger, and is convinced that we have a huge war ahead of us. He tried to get me to agree repeatedly on camera and I refused to do so; I think that disagreement may get played out in the film but I'm not sure. (He spontaneously brought it up himself when we are talking.)

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

On the other hand, he, like Neil Howe, will be very unhappy if he dies without seeing some nukes go off in anger

Why in the world would anyone ever WANT that to happen? I mean, I can see believing it will, but how can anyone find the prospect in any way appealing?

I don't get it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Why in the world would anyone ever WANT that to happen? I mean, I can see believing it will, but how can anyone find the prospect in any way appealing?

I don't get it.

Where do you get that Neil wants nukes to go off? I never read that in any of his writings.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Where do you get that Neil wants nukes to go off? I never read that in any of his writings.

It wasn't Neil Howe who wants nukes to go off but the interviewer. Read Kaiser's post again.

Bannen is very bright. On the other hand, he, like Neil Howe, will be very unhappy if he dies without seeing some nukes go off in anger, and is convinced that we have a huge war ahead of us. He tried to get me to agree repeatedly on camera and I refused to do so; I think that disagreement may get played out in the film but I'm not sure. (He spontaneously brought it up himself when we are talking.)

Yeah, but that does imply that Neil wants to see the mushroom clouds, too. Whatever, about either one: why would anyone want that?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yeah, but that does imply that Neil wants to see the mushroom clouds, too. Whatever, about either one: why would anyone want that?

There is a myth of the quick victorious war.

I'll again mention a late 1990s meeting of the Boston Futurist Society where someone from the Newport Naval College presented a rosy picture of the future of warfare. The Pacific and Atlantic moats were presented as being as wide as ever. High technology would allow US armed forces to hurt without being hurt. We were entering a golden age of cost effective military, where we could push our interests without significant costs in blood. Well, there were costs in gold to the defense industry, but he seemed to be all in favor of military spending.

I figure this was the sort of briefings the Neocons were receiving and giving. We could make peace and increase profits by shooting people who disagreed with us.

I was dubious. I brought up my usual boogie men, WMD terrorism, proxy wars and insurgent tactics. I saw war as becoming prone to expensive stalemates. He didn't want to hear it.

But man is a militant animal. I believe it instinctive to attempt to expand one's territory and culture. Unless conflict is obviously stupid, it will be tried. Al Qaida believed September 11th would lead to a war on their home turf that would be winnable. The Neocons thought going into the Middle East would be quick and easy.

I quite believe there are folks convinced that blowing off a few nukes in anger would be intimidating, that expansion of influence and profits would follow. I think there are too many WMDs and too many ways to deliver them for such a path to be prudent.

But the people who count aren't going to ask me.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

There is a myth of the quick victorious war.

I'll again mention a late 1990s meeting of the Boston Futurist Society where someone from the Newport Naval College presented a rosy picture of the future of warfare. The Pacific and Atlantic moats were presented as being as wide as ever. High technology would allow US armed forces to hurt without being hurt. We were entering a golden age of cost effective military, where we could push our interests without significant costs in blood. Well, there were costs in gold to the defense industry, but he seemed to be all in favor of military spending.

I figure this was the sort of briefings the Neocons were receiving and giving. We could make peace and increase profits by shooting people who disagreed with us.

I was dubious. I brought up my usual boogie men, WMD terrorism, proxy wars and insurgent tactics. I saw war as becoming prone to expensive stalemates. He didn't want to hear it.

But man is a militant animal. I believe it instinctive to attempt to expand one's territory and culture. Unless conflict is obviously stupid, it will be tried. Al Qaida believed September 11th would lead to a war on their home turf that would be winnable. The Neocons thought going into the Middle East would be quick and easy.

I quite believe there are folks convinced that blowing off a few nukes in anger would be intimidating, that expansion of influence and profits would follow. I think there are too many WMDs and too many ways to deliver them for such a path to be prudent.

But the people who count aren't going to ask me.

The myth of the quick war is a popular one in an Unraveling. Also the idea of said war being used to unite the divided people also goes along with it as well.

The Long War
WWI
American Civil War (begins 3Ting, ends 4Ting)
French & Indian War
Henry V's Invasion of France

Oh the list could go on and on...

~Chas'88