'Survivors' by Terry Nation British TV series 1975-19

[Muxel]

Don't forget how it started: "fun" as a means to placate a group with no common aim or philosophy, and alcohol. It is always interesting to watch how the boundaries of civility get pushed gently, so gently, then in the blink of an eye, somebody's dead. The hysteroidal cycle on a small scale. "Forget your worries; let's have some fun."


Episode: Mad Dog
While searching for the rabies/hydrophobia connection, I found this:

Given that viruses are under intense evolutionary pressure to optimise their structure and to compete with both immune systems and other strains, I doubt that it's a negative adaptation, and I'm finding it hard to believe it's exactly neutral. Rabies has been around a while and even the slightest negativity would have vanished; it would have to be exactly neutral and that seems unlikely.

I suspect that the fact that rabies is spread through virus in the saliva is the key here. A sufferer will over-salivate, and have muscle spasms if they try to swallow -- all these are geared towards getting the virus out of the current victim and into the environment. Virus which stays in the patient dies with them -- it only survives if it escapes.

So making the patient scared to drink water could prevent them washing away all that produced virus-laden saliva... making it an advantage.

Viruses like rabies that alter the host's behavior... Wasp venom that turns caterpillars/cockroaches into drones for consumption by the wasp's larvae... "Mind control" parasitic fungi that turns ants into zombies which partake in the fungi's propagation cycle... Then there's the one we all know intimately, that makes us crave what it wants: Candida.

Central to all these is the "Parasite Archetype" - co-opting somebody else for your reproductive ends.

So too with psychopathy: it entered its host via some cosmic visitation, then turned the host's collective mind pathological. What's the 4D perspective of the oft-repeated "clueless germs perishing with host"? Harvesting the maximum amount of suffering during the Shift, I presume. But I wonder what the Original Planners wanted to achieve before their experiment got hijacked.

And maybe, at a higher level, the host is partly to blame. After all, the C's said that "viruses make inroads only when there exists gaps in consciousness." While you can't blame an ant host for getting infected with a parasitic fungus, you could point out that due to the right environmental conditions the ant colony was experiencing overpopulation, so Nature metaphorically stepped in to "cull the herd". I think the inroad for psychopathy must have been when the human race went after the gold - the rush of reward chemicals that are Evolution's pat on the back for procreating.

 

[Turgon]

And I also thought of how and if it is even possible to make people see this pathology - say, I find myself in a group of peeps and a dangerous pathological is wreaking havoc, but upon calling him out, everyone else will just excuse him/her, a la "But we need each other, don't make waves here." etc. And that's just one possible scenario.

My thoughts exactly. Many people simply don't want (cannot?) see, even with repeated evidence. People have these huge programs of 'judge not lest ye be judged' and they just throw all common sense out of the window because of it. I see it every day. Pathological people hurting others purposefully, and when the victims are told the truth about them, they still choose the side of the pathologicals... It's quite disheartening. And since psychopaths in hard times will try to take over and lead people for their own gain and since many people are authoritarian followers afraid of thinking by themselves and too happy that s.o. volunteers to guide them, there's yet another recipe for disaster...

If such a situation would occur, and there are atleast some people (or even one person) who would agree that there is (or are) a pathological person within the group manipulating and causing distress, I would then rather leave the group with the people who agree that this person is causing havoc, than to stay and see how ignorant everyone is being with more and more (emotional or even physical) damage being done. Would it be wiser to leave and put energy and effort into other things? Or would it be best to stay as there is the possibility that when the damage done by this pathological person becomes so obvious and so problematic that atleast some more people would notice? But then as you guys say, there are the "forgive and forget" people, and such dynamics in a group can be quite tiring, like having a repeated harmful cycle going on. So maybe then the best thing would be to leave and to try to atleast form some kind of balanced group, if possible, and to spread awareness of this type of people, and at the same time work on things that are important, like sharing food, thinking about what to do next and so forth. I could be wrong here in my thinking, so fwiw.

If the past (of pathology) is of indication of future, pathologicals won't allow to choose as they are parasites. their strength is other obedience. freedom is as contagious as pathology. Literally all freedom struggles are full of these examples. The only choice is educating the non pathologicals rather secretly , thus countering/cutting the wings of pathologicals. If more pathologicals survive than normal people, the game is already lost.

I've only seen the first 3 episodes, but similar questions have been on my mind. If pathologicals try to usurp power within a group, then they will not allow anyone to walk away so easily. Obedience is their source of power, and to see someone leave the group of their own accord will send shockwaves throughout and the narcissistic rage the pathological feels will then be turned against the person leaving. At that point it could be costly to your life if you were to leave, because they might use you as a message to others who would even think about it.

I could be wrong, but I think this is why it's important, early on, to watch out for pathological behaviour in anyone and separate them from the reasonably minded. It might even have to become a game of chess to alert other's to the danger's of the situation. Being Wise as a serpent, but gentle as a dove.

I saw this during the Occupy Movement, how many people wanted to do good, but a few pathological types were so charismatic that they could win over the allegiances of a few and form these little 'cliques'. And even though they were just a few, because they were unified under these pathologicals, they were intimidating and could attract other's to them, just like the show. It then became a situation of trying to camp together with them which was impossible, because slowly they would encroach more and more, win over others who were unsure of themselves and easily influenced. I watched this go on wondering how to combat this? A lot of the reasonably minded people would get fed up and let them do as they please or leave the movement.

 

[loreta]

There is also the situation: people are under "shock" and can be manipulated under these circumstances. We are seeing how the politicians used this tactic. So also in a small group.

I will never forget the attitude of Greg, his action so now I am very hard on him, every movement or decision he is taking is under my magnifying glass. I see how serious he is, to much, how he is cold and always angry. He is a man with many skills but not very charming.

I will wanted to know if Terry Nation was aware of pathological types when directing his movie. And also how the actors knew about it. It is interesting to see also their body language. How Abby is always doing nothing manual, like working and how she is reading the daily newspaper (non sense) like the boss in the house. What messages these body language are giving us? How she is always hiding her hands in her pockets. Maybe to hide her rings? ;)

 

[Bluestar]

It seems as each episode moves into the next, the group keeps making similar mistakes. It all surrounds trust. They keep trusting people without taking a bit of time to ask questions. And they do not necessarily take the elders of the group serious enough. The older woman who cooks protested regarding Barney and in episode 12, series 1 "Something of Value" the older man who was an investment banker spotted signs about the latest arrival, yet they invited him, actually encouraged him to stay and see if he was a fit. And they leave the children out of the mix and they have I believe twice now, revealed info to strangers that brought them trouble.

The choice is to be inclusive or exclusive in this scenario. Accept more people in to help or keep them out. Both create issues that can turn people into killers. Protecting what is yours, especially under a survival thing is going to press people into making harsh decisions. You need a lot of people to just do basic work in keeping people fed and then to secure the commune. More and more I am not sure that I would want to survive at all, yet if I am alive, do not want to just give up. Would want to assist in creating a cohesive, symbiotic world. It is just not everyone will be on the same page. What do you do with them?

 

[Mrs. Peel]

I just watched the first episode last night, pieced it together from YouTube. Will watch more tonight. Still watching the new series "Revolution" (takes place 15 years after the power mysteriously goes out) also.

 

[MK Scarlett]

I just watched the first episode last night, pieced it together from YouTube. Will watch more tonight. Still watching the new series "Revolution" (takes place 15 years after the power mysteriously goes out) also.

I started to look at the first episode too alone, and will watch more on tomorrow but we watch the 2008 version "in family", because without subtitles at least in English it is quite complicated to follow the intrigue from the 1975-1977 version. We also look at "Revolution".

 

[zim]

I watched 3 episodes -four horseman, genesis, and gone away yesterday and today; I watched by you tube, as far as I watched some people got control of food and supplies they had to fight to get that food, there were a man who got in to their place and ate their food :(

It makes me sick to think in a possible scenario where I had to survive and the possible conflicts between the survives, how the psychopaths can get control of other people

I started to look at the first episode too alone, and will watch more on tomorrow but we watch the 2008 version "in family", because without subtitles at least in English it is quite complicated to follow the intrigue from the 1975-1977 version. We also look at "Revolution".

Where I can get that version? I dont know buy that kind of English is hard to understand!!!

 

[Voyageur]

Finished up to “Gone to the Angels” last night. The shift in one’s mind going from one reality to another, whereby everything is changed, human beings and their systems collapsed, general stressors, and mental shocks, including some surviving societal psychopaths to deal with, is truly chilling.

From the start, thought about the aspect of infrastructure; also as Pob quotes below:

[quote author=Pob ]
I just finished the book and enjoyed reading it. It does a better job of describing how the infrastructure decays and contains little nuggets such as winter being a very popular time because it allowed easier foraging in cities with less risk of infection. […]
[/quote]

Not sure what the book says on this matter, if anything, however, what was thought about and briefly mentioned by the architect (think it was Charles who had a few nuts and bolts loose alongside some reasonable planning - seems he felt he needed to be the supreme seed for the generations to come, kind of reminiscent of Dr. Strange Love), was the nuclear reactor grids. When the people were sick and dying, due possibly to poisoned fish, he discusses toxic water and nuclear reactors. In this regard, with a planet covered by 450+ of these, and given that if operational they would require very precise shutdown sequences that take time. The reality seems that many, given this scenario, might go critical with no one to attend them. The realities of this would not bode well for survivors in our modern world. Regardless of this, it is a horrible contemplation and one that humankind has seem before.

As many here have also commented, the film does offer a difficult glimpse of the mindsets that would be left that would either ponerize others or help move people ahead under the mass psychological shock of the matters that face them.

 

[loreta]

"Gone to the angels" is a very sad chapter. What I saw in this one is also how people are attached to their beliefs, their "God" that will not save them of the Plague and how some people accepted everything "in the name of God". No rebellion, no anger.

In fact, there is no anger in this series, for now, and the only one who is sometimes angry is the old woman with an accent. This woman expresses emotion and feelings but the rest of the crew very little. Maybe to express emotions is not very "British", I don't know. Maybe if you are confronted to something like this anger gives place to acceptance? But anger is a very human feeling, where is anger in the Survivors? And if there is anger, is it acceptable?

I was just thinking about this...

 

[Ollie]

...
From the start, thought about the aspect of infrastructure; also as Pob quotes below:

[quote author=Pob ]
I just finished the book and enjoyed reading it. It does a better job of describing how the infrastructure decays and contains little nuggets such as winter being a very popular time because it allowed easier foraging in cities with less risk of infection. […]

Not sure what the book says on this matter, if anything, however, what was thought about and briefly mentioned by the architect (think it was Charles who had a few nuts and bolts loose alongside some reasonable planning - seems he felt he needed to be the supreme seed for the generations to come, kind of reminiscent of Dr. Strange Love), was the nuclear reactor grids. When the people were sick and dying, due possibly to poisoned fish, he discusses toxic water and nuclear reactors. In this regard, with a planet covered by 450+ of these, and given that if operational they would require very precise shutdown sequences that take time. The reality seems that many, given this scenario, might go critical with no one to attend them. The realities of this would not bode well for survivors in our modern world. Regardless of this, it is a horrible contemplation and one that humankind has seem before.

As many here have also commented, the film does offer a difficult glimpse of the mindsets that would be left that would either ponerize others or help move people ahead under the mass psychological shock of the matters that face them.
[/quote]I watched this episode last night - it was written by someone other than Terry Nation - I do not recall in the book, this episode with 'Charles', there was a farm - a man and a child on it, all quite natural, and that was all, and both joined 'the group'.

 

[Voyageur]

[quote author=Prodigal Son]
I watched this episode last night - it was written by someone other than Terry Nation - I do not recall in the book, this episode with 'Charles', there was a farm - a man and a child on it, all quite natural, and that was all, and both joined 'the group'.
[/quote]

Reference is to this series (Epi 4 'Corn Dolly' ) and this fellow (the architect - Charles?); not sure about the book.

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=S5-2hmFod_4

 

[Ollie]

[quote author=Prodigal Son]
I watched this episode last night - it was written by someone other than Terry Nation - I do not recall in the book, this episode with 'Charles', there was a farm - a man and a child on it, all quite natural, and that was all, and both joined 'the group'.

Reference is to this series (Epi 4 'Corn Dolly' ) and this fellow (the architect - Charles?); not sure about the book.

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=S5-2hmFod_4
[/quote]Yes, that was the episode that i watched last night.

 

[Atuya]

the architect (think it was Charles who had a few nuts and bolts loose alongside some reasonable planning - seems he felt he needed to be the supreme seed for the generations to come, kind of reminiscent of Dr. Strange Love)

The character Charles represents a very real temptation for "survivors". Here is a leader-type individual with resources, practical knowledge, and a plan. It stands to reason that he would attract a large community in short time, as he did before the poisoned fish reduced his troop.

While watching this episode, I thought about this:

[quote author=October 22, 1994]
A: And knowledge forms the protection – all the protection you could ever need. … [People who claim to be receiving knowledge by faith who later find that they have received false information] … are not really gathering knowledge. These people are stuck at some point in their pathway to progress and they are undergoing a hidden manifestation of what is referred to in your terms as obsession. Obsession is not knowledge, obsession is stagnation. So, when one becomes obsessed, one actually closes off the absorption and the growth and the progress of soul development which comes with the gaining of true knowledge. For when one becomes obsessed one deteriorates the protection therefore one is open to problems, to tragedies, to all sorts of difficulties. Therefore one experiences same.[/quote]

 

[treesparrow]

Here's a site dealing with the background of the whole program, including this complete numbered episode guide of the 3 series -

http://www.survivors-mad-dog.org.uk/a-world-away/Basics_Episodes.shtml

 

[MK Scarlett]

I watched 3 episodes -four horseman, genesis, and gone away yesterday and today; I watched by you tube, as far as I watched some people got control of food and supplies they had to fight to get that food, there were a man who got in to their place and ate their food :(

It makes me sick to think in a possible scenario where I had to survive and the possible conflicts between the survives, how the psychopaths can get control of other people

I started to look at the first episode too alone, and will watch more on tomorrow but we watch the 2008 version "in family", because without subtitles at least in English it is quite complicated to follow the intrigue from the 1975-1977 version. We also look at "Revolution".

Where I can get that version? I dont know buy that kind of English is hard to understand!!!

Which one? 1975-1977 or 2008?
The 1975-1977 version is available on Youtube as mentionned previously, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my36Bm_wl7g&feature=relmfu
For the 2008 version I looked for it on the Web, but cannot remember where. Depending also of the language you use.
And about Revolution in case your question was about this one, the same than previously, on the Web.


I was amazed looking at the episode 3 on the 2008 version, and as it was previously mentionned by Laura and others people, to see how people remain hung on on their old life, their old rules, their "habits" which they do not want to leave while they are lucky to have the opportunity to be able to experiment something else.
They try to reorganize their life with old rules and all they knew about them, so and as we are in a psychopath world with psychopatic rules including the right to execute a human being because this one is hungry, they finally try to persevere in the same "errors" as those who are "common" in our world here and now. They did not get their lifes which will not become again as before, ever. The same mistakes, again and again. No knowledge about what are psychopaths and how recognize them. And they are some in this series!
Of course, it is not because we could be "ready" for this kind of "experience of life" than this means we would have all the answers or than we could make the right choices. But at least, have knowledge as much as we can at this point could save others lifes and maybe ours.

It reminded me somebody who having opened eyes on what is really our world, would decide to close them by thinking that everything could become again "as before".

And the previous thought remind me the character of Cypher in Matrix 1, the traitor, the one who prefers to the real (and hard) life, a life of comfort and pleasure, even if it means choosing consciously to live in the fictitious, in the delusion. He wants to return to "The Matrix", to a life according to his dreams and his aspiration.