And much more. But it must be the overwhelming force of the BBC's jewish money that determines The Apprentice. It's their (or our) money. It's depressing and ridiculous, but compared with two half-hour sessions of crime drama I suppose it has spontaneity. It may even cost less.

Media subtexts now (below) says much the same...

Problems
Top
For a critic, the problem is all this is not very relevant to serious business tasks, which of course are likely to take many years and need detailed thought. The rationale is that it mimics Sugar's own life, buying and selling, and I think putting up aerials—a way into electronics. The TV problem is that the whole thing looks wrong: nobody is shown consulting Internet for sources of bowler hats or ouds or lobsters or whatever; or making phone calls from an office; or planning road routes. The participating people all seem kept in the dark, deliberately underinformed, which makes for dramatic TV, but looks incredible. Market research, which in real life takes painstaking experimental design, is shoehorned in as not much more than a joke. The costs of the cars, of the 'industry experts', of the photography, models, experts, rents, are ignored. It's impossible to be sure even how accurate the money figures are: after a day with eight people doing cash deals, how can anyone be sure the pot hasn't been discreetly incremented? The whole thing could be staged; it's been pointed out that in the final 'reveal' the second team is always the winning one, with partial results read out deliberately to increase the 'tension'.
    However, the participants aren't just helpless pawns. An obvious and clearly visible motive is to get TV publicity, and several of the women have so far been able to appear in junk newspapers and breakfast TV, discussing things like fat women and Palestinians as rats. Many of the candidates have ridiculous business plans, or have no idea what Sugar has done. Many are worryingly ignorant: one team seemed not to know that kilograms differ from pounds, and (like dangerous foreign nurses) couldn't convert mgs into grams. One man seemed unable to grasp that different types of dog may need different types of diet. There were incidents with saffron. There were claims to qualifications and business experience and company ownership which proved false. "Derek" was a mistake.
    ... The two things most have in common are (1) a standardised attitude to CVs: each of them claimed to be the best salesman, to be a winner and unwilling to pronounce the 'l' word, to be a fighter: I'm a brilliant team player, but a stellar team leader; I'm adaptable, trustworthy, a strategic thinker; I have many serious business ideas in my head... and (2) vagueness about their previous 'professional'—standard meme—work: Senior Sales Consultant, Accounts Manager, Commercial Manager, Marketing Consultant, Human Resources Consultant, Communications Manager...
    It seems fair, therefore, to view the candidates as would-be media types. I haven't attempted to survey the rejects, or the winners, but, as might be expected, astounding business successes appear to be non-existent.

London is another character: impressive aerial views, perhaps supplied by Skyworks, discreetly tidied-up, are a reminder that things aren't yet that bad. Prokofiev is another star. So is the voiceover chap: he introduces puns of the sort found in the Financial Times: dog-eat-dog world (when the task is dog food); even 'the girls snatched victory'. Other stars are London landmarks from street level, such as Harrods, the US Embassy (with its pathetic staff pretending Obama is a legitimate president), a deserted Fleet Street printing works now free of Murdoch's trash, and some of Sugar's businesses—CD player, hireable private jet, and air credit card. And the human equivalent of product placement: Mel Smith, who was involved in the series, looking pitifully ancient, for example.
    London from the air is impressive; it has clearly taken vast amounts of skill and intellect and hard work. Ironically, these aerial views force the viewer to think these gimcrack 'apprentices' are redundant, like gipsies prowling round hawking junk to people by far their superiors. It's perfectly obvious that a vast metropolitan city could not have been built by such a miserable collection of tenth-rate hucksters.

Media Subtexts Now
Top
Many people by now know the media are almost entirely Jewish-run, and obvious expectations are that media will avoid discussion of Jewish money power (paper, and the newer e-money) and its by-products, such as ownership of the media and media distribution, and ownership of politicians and parties. On top of this, it's to be expected that Jewish supremacist fantasies will be aired. Here's a list:
• Whites, Christians as evil (there are many entertaining quotations online, for example by Susan Sontag and Noel Ignatieff and George Soros; I recommend the video of Barbara Lerner Spectre for people who haven't yet grasped this). Apprentice does not I think ever say this, but there are subtle corollaries:–
• Whites as subservient and absurdly ignorant. The whole structure of Apprentice with "YesSirAlan" and "YesLordSugar", and the deliberate posing of uninformed problems, revolves round this
• Immigration pushed by Jews. (Except into Israel, and non-white countries!) The Barbara Spectre clip illustrates this. One episode of Apprentice had almost entirely 'black' candidates presumably claimed to be 'British'
• Equality for all except jews pretence
• Parasitism by money control is given no prominence in Apprentice, as is standard Jewish policy. They don't want anyone to know their money is worthless
• Skills generally are treated with indifference—which is part of the parasitic Jewish world-view. If parasitism is smallish, perhaps this doesn't matter. When it swells to a huge proportion, as for example in the Jewish hell of the USSR, and in black Africa, it does matter
• The whole individualism idea is largely a Jewish construction, to distract from the close secret collaboration of Jews with each other internationally. Certainly in Apprentice no examination is given to the notion of a single splendid entrepreneur as a bit of a fantasy, and nobody ever wonders whether Sugar, Kalms, their named advertising agents etc were selectively funded.
• The business world is treated as separate from government and military matters, something which is not true in the real world. However, presumptions about World Wars 1 and 2, Vietnam, Iraq and so on—and of course Israel—must never be questioned
    All this is well-known enough to students of the development of the modern world. The final question here is whether Sugar collaborates in jewish fantasies and actions, or whether he is a 'useful idiot', selected because he is insulated from such matters.

Apprentice Australia
Top
Connoisseurs of media stuff may like Apprentice Australia. I thought this was very funny; though I'm not sure why: maybe the transposition of the various elements to Australia. The series I watched included Mark Bouris as the entrepreneur, and his prize included Yellow Brick Road (ybr.com.au) providing advice to Australians wanting financial security. Yes. There was standard Aussie supposed informality: handshakes, good day mate, and of course they couldn't say 'Sir Alan'. Sydney shown with palm trees and nice weather in place of Victorian London houses. There were fewer mixed race types, as Jews have so far I hope been slower in Australia than other white countries. There seems to be a similar necessity for blackish types to win. We see an assistant not unlike the late Susannah York. And so on.

Is Alan Sugar a Useful Idiot?
Top
Let's consider first typical Jewish activities. These include (1) Trafficking in girls, typically Slavs, in Israel for prostitution; (2) Organ trafficking; (3) Controlling thugs to oppose free speech, of the Gerald Gable type; (4) Funding trade unions and similar groups such as the NUS and NUJ and Equity (National Union of Students/ National Union of Journalists/ Actors) to support jewish activities; (5) Controlling the media, for example to suppress mention of immigrant violence, however horrific, against whites; and to 'positively discriminate' (6) Funding politicians to support mass immigration, and funding for immigrant groups; (7) Funding politicians to get public assets under jewish control; (8) Supporting Talmudic traditions such as child sex.
    These are just a few typical jewish activities, and I've excluded really large-scale financial frauds, mass murders, etc. To what extent, if any, is Apprentice part of this worldview? There have been no project tests along the lines of (say) planning a false flag, such as a fake murder of a soldier; or drawing up a contract for a set of school textbooks full of lies believed suitable by jews; or planning a series of laws in the hope of impeding free speech; or making a speech to a group to get funds for some jewish organisation, such as a charity giving 1% to the lucky beneficiaries. Or determining news policy in reporting crime, no doubt according to 'industry experts'. This of course would not be expected on TV as it is anyway. There are a few events where jewish interests flicker in the background: the Hackney Empire renovation seems likely to fail, since jews have forced so much immigration into London that its audience has largely gone. The free newspaper chap could not be expected to reflect that jews have cut down the market for conventional jewish papers by so much that only free newspapers may survive. The skin tones for tights issue (2014 series) is presented as though synthetic fibre makers hadn't thought of it before, something obviously absurd. All this is consistent with presentation by the jewish rulebook, but not with the unpopular parts.
    Sugar's attitudes as perhaps revealed in passing (they may simply be acted) include a visit to a London council estate where he (claimed he) was brought up, presumably from 1948. By coincidence the year in which British soldiers were hanged and Palestinians were driven by terror from their ancestral lands. One of the characteristics of jews in ingratitude; I've certainly never seen anything like thanks from Sugar. He shows no sign of deviating from the standard jewish pro-immigration, anti-white and of course anti-German and anti-Russian fixation. In one Apprentice episode he's shown saying he's jewish, and doesn't give a shit, though the cutting of the scene is a bit ambiguous. Maybe significant is the fact (according to Wiki) that he donates to Jewish charity. (There's a TV charity episode, which only mentions Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital in London). Again, all his published material seems consistent with the jewish worldview. In the 2017 series, Sugar had the affrontery to claim to be a Cockney. And a woman candidate was suggesting a slogan or brand with 'crusade' in it, and Sugar grimaced, and said "You just don't get it." There have been 'blonking' scenes with schools, showing vast numbers of immigrants, as approved by Jew people traffickers.
    I've noticed quite a bit of emphasis on ethics, for example when discussing cosmetic surgery, and dealing with 'mature businessman'. It's possible this is a careful insertion to counter some previous assertions, e.g. that he would sell nuclear bombs if there was money in it. (This may have been a Jewish in-joke, of course).
    In the BBC world of easy lies, with vast atrocities brushed aside, and the commercial counterpart, Sugar's wealth is variously accounted; staring with £800M or 900M in the first series. What a billionaire would be so concerned at the relative chicken feed of £100,000 (about a tenth of a percent) goes unexamined; so of course does the network of payments, notoriously lavish, and notoriously secret, of the BBC. All this material has to be treated as suspect.
    Another issue is colleagues: even on TV we have the quizzers of the candidates listed as: Paul Kemsley, Claude Littner, Bordan Tkachuk, Matthew Riley, Mike Soutar, Claudine Collins. There's of course nothing accessible on selective Jewish funding.

Anyway; is Sugar a 'useful idiot'? Is Apprentice used to promote jewish aims, as an example of a hard-working, firm but fair, self-made man? Or is he just another part of the problem, working together in secret behind the scenes? I don't know. Perhaps you do?

2019: Retail Obfuscation
Top
Watching an episode (December 2019) a few things occurred to me, obvious once they're pointed out. It's not very well known, except, presumably, by Jews, that the Jewish control over paper money ensures that most assets are Jewish; in this case, shopping malls and shopping centres and what are still called High Streets are mostly owned by Jews, rents of course going to Jews. But this had come under a subtle attack since the start of Internet. Online shops allow a superior version of catalogue shopping to flourish; often enough sales of smallish object sent by courier are cheaper than shops or stores with rents, business taxes, personnel, insurance, what have you. Many youthful entrepreneurs must have been attracted by the thought of selling by Internet sites. And yet, at least in the episodes I've seen, the 'business plans' such as they are do not include much in the way of Internet. One of the women 'candidates' had a High Street cake and coffee shop; I won't weary readers with other plans, but they largely ignored Internet. She thought she'd like 2,000+ shops. Maybe it'll happen, since instant food can't be supplied by Internet One presentation was to a board from Debenhams, which group is known, or believed to be, entering administration. Anyway, it seems likely that rents in shops are under downward pressure—as the charity shops and emty sites have indicated for years. And it seems like this aspect of the world is one that Sugar has systematically evaded.

Artic Saviour   Broadcast Thursday 3 Feb 2022 ...
... but recorded probably six months earlier, judging by the weather. Interesting to watch this; yet another example of 'affirmative action' in action, if it can even be called that. The feature here was supposed to be rival teams trying to design or outline a new computer game. Without being nasty, one of the teams (the entire team) couldn't spell arctic. And didn't know that penguins live in the southern hemisphere. (And that polar bears are big and dangerous. And that the ice caps (referred to as 'capsules') in the north are floating ice, and would not raise sea levels.) I'm sure Sugar's synagogue tipped him off about the 'Climate Change' frauds—and probably the Holohoax fraud, 9/11 fraud, and COVID fraud. So he has some basis for his secret hand on the tiller, steering from the subject, and from others—I doubt he'd have allowed a game on escaping from Jewish killers in the USSR.
      A rather worrisome aspect of the Jewish victory of the Second World War is their attitude to education. I *think* in addition to the absurd religious and 'cultural' baggage, the was at least some attempt to teach serious science. But as Jewish power has infected more areas of life, absence of science has expanded, not just in economics, sociology, and military matters. Analogously, after the Roman Empire was stretched thin and died, techniques everywhere weakened and crashed. Maybe that's our future. Today (just on example) electricity in Africa seems likely to crash. The 'candidates' in The Apprentice, ignorant of almost anything except 'power dressing', are worryingly silly.
      On a totally different subject, I've often been baffled by Sugar's choice of sackees. But thanks to the rather painful follow-up TV thing, the sacked say they reveal their proposed businesses. This are often rather feeble. So I think probably the secret chat previous to the expulsion looks at these proposals and selects accordingly. The waving finger is a bit of a gimmick.
      Another different issue seems to be the problem of getting any 'candidates' for this TV thing. I was amused to see the red-coloured-haired American-voiced woman, who seems to do nothing, make a point of putting her hand on a black thigh. For people who aren't aware of the Jewish policy of promoting race-mixing—see TV advertising if you don't know this—it suggests she's a Jew, intruded to keep the numbers up.

2019: Notes on Jews
Top
2017 Reprise: Watching a recent edition, with its collection of sad simpletons with their clichés, I was struck more than ever by the Jewish ambience, no doubt fostered by the BBC's Cohen regime of round-the-clock lies. We see a tunnel in the white cliffs of Dover, a photo of the war criminal Churchill, and the supposed businesswoman, Karen with two r's, posturing in what looked like a military-style gaberdine. The divide-and-rule aspect of Jews shows up in the teams, which of course are marked with infighting, carefully recorded by the costly BBC teams, as they discuss their pitiful tasks—in this case, buying a few items. The French angle here was (probably) to allow Claude Littner (Jews control France, too) a day trip. None of the candidates have a clue about Jewish control of paper money; the English girl booted out at the end—you'll see!—had a touching faith in the equity of the system; maybe she'll learn. Another white candidate seems to have been specially selected to be 'inappropriate'. The general parasitic attitude of Jews—and what would anyone expect, after all, from people with mental furniture fixed on fantasies millennia ago—is amusing to identify: every single task relies on other people doing the visuals, the tastes, the packaging, the sounds, the advertising. The routine lies of modern advertising are assumed, without any thought, to be true, or at least applicable. This attitude seems to be unconsciously absorbed by most people; certainly the young 'entrepreneurs' take it for granted that absurd messages and images are part of the package—if not the entire package itself. The follow-up programme is now 'hosted' by Jack Dee, who doesn't seem temperamentally suited to it: he made a nasty comment about the unpleasant business of dealing with the French—I'd guess dealing with Dee (if that's his real name) would be rather more so. Anyway; as with Big Brother the formulaic bones are showing too strongly now. But the problem is the BBC has no creativity whatever. What will happen? Let's hope for a genuine revolution in the BBC.

October 2019 Usual odd overstatements in the few episodes I've seen. One involved 'designing a bike'. For a second I thought this might involve designing a bike—stresses and strains, weight of materials, soft saddles. But the only design was asking an expert, or at least a completely silent person with some 3-D software, to produce something suited to hypothetical buyers. It was ludicrously unconvincing, as was a £1 million order. It would need a Poirot with media experience to work out what really happened.
      A fascinating aspect of the whole thing is the standardised presentation. The women pay more attention to their appearance than to their supposed tasks. A novelty is eyebrows, now getting on for half an inch think. Lipstick, when it was new, must have carried a similar fake shock.
      Another episode was the purchasing challenge: each team driven to some location to buy about ten items, each identified by names in capital letters. There must be a ban on internet searches. This episode featured Oxford and Cambridge, the world's most famous university towns, Sugar announced. None of them seemed to know anything about universities; perhaps it was an in-joke for Jews, since universities have been spookily Jew-dominated since they were founded. A new-to-me Jewish joke was war in the 20th century. Obviously World War 2 existed in some memory hole, because of the Jew references, more fake than real. But World War 1 seemed unknown to any of them. A subplot involved an Alice in Wonderland book, unspecified, published before WW2; BOTH teams were shown at the SAME antiquarian bookshop, in which a pullovered chap, I'd guess hoping for publicity, or perhaps paid, negotiated around £200 for a pre-1914 not first edition. We also had mortar boards, in which nobody seemed to realise that mortar was, in fact, worked on boards. And punt poles which we were told are called 'quandts' or 'quants'; perhaps a joke.
      The final part, of totting up the claimed moneys, and selection of the losing team, is always fun to watch. I can't be bothered to work out why, though.