"Generation Zero - The Inconceivable Truth" - the movie

The documentary movie "Generation Zero" has been described by those
who've seen it as brilliant, powerful and frightening.

"Generation Zero" is generally based on generational theory.
Something I hadn't been aware of until recently is that Strauss and
Howe's book Generations was well known to major Democratic and
Republican politicians as early as the 1992 presidential election,
and it played a part in their campaign strategy.

I got involved in this movie when Steve Bannon called me about a year
ago. He said that he'd been spending many hours studying
generational theory on my web site and in the Fourth Turning book, and
that he wanted to take those ideas forward into a movie. He said that
he wanted this movie to use some of the same techniques that Al Gore
used in "An Inconvenient Truth." He ended up filming me for a total
of about six hours in two different sessions, one in Washington and
one in New York. Of the six hours, I understand that only a few
minutes of what I said are in the 85 minute film. Most of the
commentators are politicians. The three commentators who are
knowledgeable about generational theory are myself, Neil Howe, and
Dave Kaiser.

** New documentary movie 'Generation Zero' brings generational theory to the public.
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...100222#e100222

"Generation Zero" is a non-partisan movie, but it was originally
screened at The National Tea Party Convention in Nashville a couple of
weeks ago. Steve Bannon tells me that the Tea Party movement plans to
make the movie a major unifying theme of their campaign leading up to
November elections. Thus, this movie has the potential to make the
world much more aware of generational theory than I or Howe or Kaiser
have been able to do.

This has been an exciting year for generational theory. We've seen
Sri Lanka make a clear transition from a Fourth Turning to a First
Turning, as its crisis civil war ended last year. We've seen Iran's
Awakening era student riots and demonstrations explode into the
world's headlines, and we're seeing the same thing happen in Iraq
with elections due next month. And of course we've seen the West's
Fourth Turning crisis worsen. The basic core concepts of Strauss and
Howe's theory have been shown to be true for all times and places in
history. This movie will bring those ideas to a much wider public.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/forum

Oh great, first Marc and now Xenakis?

Originally Posted by Odin

Oh great, first Marc and now Xenakis?

Come on. Odin. With Kaiser and Howe?

I for one am looking forward to seeing it. I understood there was to be something on it on TV tomorrow but searched the TV guide and couldn't find it.

Dear Pat,

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

> I for one am looking forward to seeing it. I understood there was
> to be something on it on TV tomorrow but searched the TV guide and
> couldn't find it.

The writer/director of the movie, Steve Bannon, will be on Hannity (on
Fox News Channel) on Tuesday evening from 9-10 pm ET, and the entire
hour is going to be devoted to this movie. They're going to show
several segments of the movie.

The movie itself is non-partisan, but it's being heavily promoted
by the conservatives.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/forum

It's hard for me to believe this will be non-partisan with the cast listing...

John Bolton
Arthur Brooks
Lou Dobbs
David Frum
John Fund
Newt Gingrich
Roger Kimball
Charles Krauthammer
Manhattan Institute
Hoover Institution
CATO Institute
Stephen Moore
Dick Morris
Tobin Smith

It's a cross section of the libertarian to the neoconservative... Not one liberal amongst them... lol, you could have at least had Robert Brenner.

But, we'll see - I'll be watching Hannity tomorrow.

Originally Posted by John X

The writer/director of the movie, Steve Bannon, will be on Hannity (on
Fox News Channel) on Tuesday evening from 9-10 pm ET, and the entire
hour is going to be devoted to this movie. They're going to show
several segments of the movie.

This means that I'm actually planning to watch Fox for an hour tomorrow night.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Pat,



The writer/director of the movie, Steve Bannon, will be on Hannity (on
Fox News Channel) on Tuesday evening from 9-10 pm ET, and the entire
hour is going to be devoted to this movie. They're going to show
several segments of the movie.

The movie itself is non-partisan, but it's being heavily promoted
by the conservatives.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/forum

Considering that Al Gore was known to be on board from the beginning, it is a shame that he wasn't a contributer.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Pat,



The writer/director of the movie, Steve Bannon, will be on Hannity (on
Fox News Channel) on Tuesday evening from 9-10 pm ET, and the entire
hour is going to be devoted to this movie. They're going to show
several segments of the movie.

The movie itself is non-partisan, but it's being heavily promoted
by the conservatives.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/forum

Ah. Eastern time. I'm on Mountain time and didn't think to look in the late night slot. Doing so, I see the entire Fox lineup for tonight is:

American Idol, followed by News 13, followed by TMZ, followed by a Star Trek rerun, followed by South Park.

Come to think of it, this happens a lot. Something I want to see is on a mainstream channel and instead of running it, they run something stupid, presumably to better please what they perceive as their audience. Oh, well. Maybe it'll come to our ocal art house as a movie. It sure won't be hitting the multiplexes!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Ah. Eastern time. I'm on Mountain time and didn't think to look in the late night slot. Doing so, I see the entire Fox lineup for tonight is:

American Idol, followed by News 13, followed by TMZ, followed by a Star Trek rerun, followed by South Park.

Come to think of it, this happens a lot. Something I want to see is on a mainstream channel and instead of running it, they run something stupid, presumably to better please what they perceive as their audience. Oh, well. Maybe it'll come to our ocal art house as a movie. It sure won't be hitting the multiplexes!

Pat, it's the cable channel FNC (Fox News Channel), not the over-the-air Fox
entertainment channel.

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Pat, it's the cable channel FNC (Fox News Channel), not the over-the-air Fox
entertainment channel.

John

John,

What software do you use to post? You're the only poster whose text is llimited to 80 characters per line. Is it News Reader of some sort?

Sadly, the more I read about this the more I think it is destined to be a major ideological propaganda piece in the war against the working class. All this is to continue to set the stage to attack both Social Security and Medicare to keep the most wealth in the pockets of the upper 5%.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Pat,



The writer/director of the movie, Steve Bannon, will be on Hannity (on Fox News Channel) on Tuesday evening from 9-10 pm ET, and the entire hour is going to be devoted to this movie. They're going to show several segments of the movie.

The movie itself is non-partisan, but it's being heavily promoted by the conservatives.

Sincerely,

John

Of course, I see the theory as being inherently partisan. Changing technology requires a changing society. Every four score and seven years, major social change is required to transfer government, military, culture, morality and much else to reflect a world much changed. In any such time, the established group with wealth and power resists said change. The crisis continues until the society as a whole recognizes that the change is absolutely necessary.

S&H, having a strong conservative personal slants, did not want to see this. Their view of the crisis focuses on generation stereotypes rather than the nature of the changes that come about in crisis. Given the list of contributors to the movie, the audience they selected for initial presentation, and the media outlet they have chosen to begin the publicity push, I anticipate that S&H theory will be projected in the tradition of the conservative S&H perception of the theory not being partisan, that the transforming changes aren't by their very nature radical and progressive.

What I said above is not new. Back during the Bush 43 administration, Mike Alexander claimed one could not identify in advance which political party would be the progressives driving the change, and which would be the conservatives resisting change. I went down the list of problems we were facing, the issues that would have to be addressed, and found the Republicans consistently financed by status quo industries that wanted to maintain the existing very profitable arrangements. Their morality too was traditional Christian. Any new technology from stem cells to green energy was resisted. Every problem from global warming to peak oil was to be ignored.

The crisis shall continue until the problems are solved. It is not entirely about horoscope like personality stereotypes. It is about resistance to change and what it takes to overcome this resistance. What is required? Disastrous policy leads to disasters. Man is a stubborn clinger to the things that are. Only disaster and failure will lead to large scale transformation.

I do not doubt that they managed to make a movie about turning theory that supports the conservative political agenda. We've seen it for years on this web site, conservatives promoting their values while giving lip service to the theory. I wouldn't be surprised to see the theory move to the public eye as a result of this movie.

But there is a potential for a backfire. The theory likely doesn't say what they want it to say. They might well be promoting a new way of looking at things that will not in the long run work in their favor.

We've two threads going here, a Tea Party thread, and a Mad As Hell thread. There are people on both fringes, and indeed in both centers, who are very unhappy with Washington. Who is happy with Washington? The creators of this movie may very well be correct that a new framework for looking at the nation's politics might be a potent tool.

But I suspect they will present a warped incomplete version of the tool. The result might possibly do more harm than good.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Pat, it's the cable channel FNC (Fox News Channel), not the over-the-air Fox
entertainment channel.

John

Found and marked. Thank you!

Originally Posted by Odin

Oh great, first Marc and now Xenakis?

To my knowledge Xenakis was never banned, he sorta self-exiled. It seems he may be back to tout glorified war cycle stuff again.

Marc on the other hand told Craig to shove off immediately after being warned. No-one else, at least not any regular poster, ever did that. In order to have any semblance of authority Craig had no choice but to kick Marc out.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It is not entirely about horoscope like personality stereotypes. It is about resistance to change and what it takes to overcome this resistance.

I think it is both. Different angles of the same thing. Institutional foundations are fundamentally altered during 4T's and new edifices built upon them in 1T's. Early in a 2T the construction comes to screeching halt and things are largely frozen in place. From then on a little maintenance or tiny additions may occur, but as time passes you get at best jerry-rigged fixes, at worst neglect and actual demolition. By the end of the 3T you have an institutional framework the fundamentals of which are nearly a human lifetime old, and nothing of serious consequence added in nearly half a lifetime. As a result the outer world is a dysfuncational mess.

What brings this to pass? Archeytpes, their life phase positions, and their relationships with one another. The "horoscope" stuff.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

What is required? Disastrous policy leads to disasters. Man is a stubborn clinger to the things that are. Only disaster and failure will lead to large scale transformation.

Sometimes those transformations are conservative or stagnating in nature. For the former see the White Revolution of Bismark (German 19th century 4T to 1T). Progressive ideas were coopted by the Right to keep an established elite in power. This made for a very advanced "conservative" society -- and look where that got Germany in the end, BTW. For the latter one need only look at poor socialist Britain after WWII. For both, look at the American South after Reconstruction.

Hell, imagine if the Newburgh Conspiracy had moved forward in 1783. Our history could have looked a lot more like Latin America's, even with American Revolution and it's transformations behind us.

Examples of highly imperfect "transformational" possibilities abound. A Millenial Crisis "successfully" completed by the Palin-Beck administration could look something like those.

To begin with, I was half serious in making that statement about Neil, based on a number of conversations and email exchanges with him. Let's put it this way, I think he's very comfortable with the idea that large-scale violence is inherently part of a 4T. Bannen actually believes there's a trend towards more and more violent 4Ts in US history and expects it to contribute.

Meanwhile, I just received this reminder:

An in-depth analysis of our film, Generation Zero, will be featured tonight, February 23 at 9pm EST for a full hour on The Sean Hannity Show on Fox News. We've been told that this is the first time a full hour has been dedicated to a single film on a weekly primetime special. Hope you get a chance to see it.

Thanks for helping to make this film possible!

--
Tien Pasco
Associate Producer
Generation Zero
Citizens United Productions
1006 Pennsylvania Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Phone: 202-547-5420
Fax: 202-547-5421

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Pat,



The writer/director of the movie, Steve Bannon, will be on Hannity (on
Fox News Channel) on Tuesday evening from 9-10 pm ET, and the entire
hour is going to be devoted to this movie. They're going to show
several segments of the movie.

The movie itself is non-partisan, but it's being heavily promoted
by the conservatives.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/forum

Looks like I'll have to tear myself away from the Games in Vancouver to watch FoxNews! Tis truly will be a strange night for me.

Hi John.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The movie itself is non-partisan, but it's being heavily promoted
by the conservatives.

Why is this?

The thrust of the film seems fairly clear, based on the promotions - how the irresponsibility of Boomers caused the financial crisis.

As for Bob butler's comments, it's the same old story. He sees the world as he wants to see it, not as it is, and then states those views as fact. Even as the foundations of his stated set of "key issues" collapse under his feet - as in the case of global warming - he's absolutely certain that "his side" is the side of "progress". Nevermind that everyone else in the country believes the "issues" are something completely different. He will still be saying the same things when it's all over and none of what he predicted (wanted) happened.

You should try to prepare yourself for the possibility that the "Tea Party" is in fact the beginning of the "regeneracy". It will soften the blow if that turns out to be the case. Unlike Mr. Butler, I'm not prepared to make that determination emphatically. But it is the first thing that has started to look like the real deal. And the fact that they've gotten tapped into S&H is perhaps a significant thing.

One other point: Neil Howe very clearly leans to the left politically. He is probably a sort of moderate, centrist "blue dog" Democrat. The fact that Bob Butler describes him as having a "strong conservative slant" just shows how far to the left Mr. Butler is.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

As for Bob butler's comments, it's the same old story. He sees the world as he wants to see it, not as it is, and then states those views as fact. Even as the foundations of his stated set of "key issues" collapse under his feet - as in the case of global warming - he's absolutely certain that "his side" is the side of "progress". Nevermind that everyone else in the country believes the "issues" are something completely different. He will still be saying the same things when it's all over and none of what he predicted (wanted) happened.

Tell you what, JPT. I'm confident enough that Bob is right, that I'm willing to bet you an even thousand dollars that a liberal agenda will be enacted in full by the year 2025.

I'll define "liberal agenda" to include the following elements:

1) Higher tax rates on the rich, with a top tax bracket of at least 40% income tax (probably much higher).

2) Subsidies for green energy and a wholesale shifting away from dependence on fossil fuels and to a high-efficiency energy economy with energy coming from a mix of solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear to an increasing degree, and coal and oil power being phased out. We will also be well on the way to phasing out the internal-combustion engine and replacing it with something else, probably fuel cells.

3) Comprehensive health-care reform at least equivalent to Obama's recently-published proposal or to either of the bills that have passed one house of Congress.

4) Some counter to the Supreme Court decision removing barriers to corporate spending on elections. That may be a reversal of that decision by a future court, a constitutional amendment, or some sort of workaround legislation; I can't predict the form, but a solution will be achieved.

If you're really as confident as you say you are, and it's not just empty bluster, take this bet and collect your thousand bucks as of New Year's Day 2025.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The thrust of the film seems fairly clear, based on the promotions - how the irresponsibility of Boomers caused the financial crisis.

As for Bob butler's comments, it's the same old story. He sees the world as he wants to see it, not as it is, and then states those views as fact. Even as the foundations of his stated set of "key issues" collapse under his feet - as in the case of global warming - he's absolutely certain that "his side" is the side of "progress". Nevermind that everyone else in the country believes the "issues" are something completely different. He will still be saying the same things when it's all over and none of what he predicted (wanted) happened.

You should try to prepare yourself for the possibility that the "Tea Party" is in fact the beginning of the "regeneracy". It will soften the blow if that turns out to be the case. Unlike Mr. Butler, I'm not prepared to make that determination emphatically. But it is the first thing that has started to look like the real deal. And the fact that they've gotten tapped into S&H is perhaps a significant thing.

One other point: Neil Howe very clearly leans to the left politically. He is probably a sort of moderate, centrist "blue dog" Democrat. The fact that Bob Butler describes him as having a "strong conservative slant" just shows how far to the left Mr. Butler is.

But, JPT, I'm coming to think even Richard Nixon would appear to you to be on the far left. I'm quite sure Nelson Rockefeller would have struck you as being so.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Tell you what, JPT. I'm confident enough that Bob is right, that I'm willing to bet you an even thousand dollars that a liberal agenda will be enacted in full by the year 2025.

I'll define "liberal agenda" to include the following elements:

1) Higher tax rates on the rich, with a top tax bracket of at least 40% income tax (probably much higher).

2) Subsidies for green energy and a wholesale shifting away from dependence on fossil fuels and to a high-efficiency energy economy with energy coming from a mix of solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear to an increasing degree, and coal and oil power being phased out. We will also be well on the way to phasing out the internal-combustion engine and replacing it with something else, probably fuel cells.

3) Comprehensive health-care reform at least equivalent to Obama's recently-published proposal or to either of the bills that have passed one house of Congress.

4) Some counter to the Supreme Court decision removing barriers to corporate spending on elections. That may be a reversal of that decision by a future court, a constitutional amendment, or some sort of workaround legislation; I can't predict the form, but a solution will be achieved.

If you're really as confident as you say you are, and it's not just empty bluster, take this bet and collect your thousand bucks as of New Year's Day 2025.

I've never stated emphatic confidence in any of my theories about the future. I am pretty confident of a few things, one of which is that global warming is now a dead issue, even if some will cling to it to the bitter end.

1) Much higher taxes? I doubt it, for this reason: the economy is in the toilet, and the nation is rapidly approaching a fiscal crisis. Theoretically, you can solve the fiscal crisis in one of two ways (in the most simplistic way of thinking): raise taxes or cut spending. Raising taxes is a recipe for disaster on both fronts. Tax increases hurt economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, low growth means you collect less revenue, even with higher rates. Cutting spending is shaping up to be the only option, which means entitlement reform. Even the Democrats are hesitating to raise taxes, and there has even been talk from some that the Bush cuts should be extended. They know the paradox they're in. They are ideologically trapped into being unable to solve the fiscal crisis. They have only managed in one year to accelerate it and make it nearly inevitable.

2) As you see from the "Contract from America" thread, energy policy will probably include increased domestic production of fossil fuels. Change that aspect of your statement, and I don't totally disagree. I don't think it is a defining issue, though. I think it's a side issue. Any policy that increases energy costs will fail miserably, in a hailstorm of public outrage.

3) No way in hell. And if the Democrats use the "nuclear option", they are even more dead than they are now. The public has spoken, emphatically. The Democrats are spitting into the wind, and it's going to get a whole lot wetter the longer they keep at it.

4) Doubt it. The court has ruled. Most people didn't even notice.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

But, JPT, I'm coming to think even Richard Nixon would appear to you to be on the far left. I'm quite sure Nelson Rockefeller would have struck you as being so.

By today's standards on the Right, Nixon and Rockefeller would be liberal. Can you believe what Glenn Beck would say about Nixon's price controls? Holy cow.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

But, JPT, I'm coming to think even Richard Nixon would appear to you to be on the far left. I'm quite sure Nelson Rockefeller would have struck you as being so.

In my view, the Nixon/Rockefeller/Bush type of Republican is a progressive - meaning that they view government power as a useful means of "improving society". Their ends may be different from those on the left, but their means are the same. There are differences between Fascists and Socialists, but they both produce essentially the same outcome, and they are both opposed to the (classical) liberalism (i.e. "libertarianism") that is the foundation of the United States.

Or to quote Ronald Reagan's famous 1964 speech, "A Time for Choosing":

"You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: up, to man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."

So, JPT, does that mean you accept the bet, or not?

I'll add a #5: we will have caps in place on greenhouse emissions, with or without cap-and-trade.

Remember, if you take the bet, and I'm wrong on EVEN ONE of these predictions as of January 1, 2005, you win $1,000. I only win if I'm right on ALL FIVE.

Take me up on it, or not?