Review of The Apprentice BBC TV (in Britain). 2005-2014
Useful Idiot Entertainment for Fantasy Entrepreneurs?
Sugar and Electronics
Media Subtexts Now
Is Alan Sugar a Useful Idiot?
The Apprentice British version (with Alan Sugar) postdates the US versions (with Donald Trump). It started in 2005, almost exactly at the time as Youtube started, and about mid-way through the UK Big Brother. All these were based on technical developments: digital TV, portable digital recorders, digital editors and sound processing, reliable wifi. Big Brother must have suggested a market gap for 'reality' about people who were cleverer and/or able to do things. These new devices were cheap: hours of video could be thrown away for a few 'gems'. But in several respects media conventions were retained, notably the secrecy about production. Amongst the various credits (BBC, 'Talkback' companies, originally set up by the late Mel Smith, and Griff Rhys Jones, in turn something to do with Fremantle Media—'The UK's most creative content business', and Thames Television) is Mark Burnett. Burnett seems to have surfaced through a US TV series called Survivor, set in remote areas of the world. Just as Michael Palin followed Alan Whicker in the globetrotting format, Burnett worked in the 'globetrotter-in-trouble' format, showing people struggling against the odds. I haven't watched his TV, but I think it's a safe bet that the recording equipment, the power generators, the personal caravans, the catering, the haulage stuff, the medical help, satellite communications, food, water, hotels etc would not have been given priority.
BBC involvement is always difficult to deal with, because its compulsory levy of money (the 'licence') gives it a different apparent feel from the US media, which is obviously run by jews. In fact of course jewish control of US money means they have far more than the BBC. This review is revisionist—I'm assuming jewish influence. Such as Burnett and others getting an 'award' in 2014 from the ADL, an astonishingly sinister jewish outfit mostly operating in the USA.
After ten years, some information about The Apprentice has leaked out erratically to the public. For example, I've read that the 'boardroom' with its giant glass table is a fake. Probably its ante-room is a fake, too. In fact the building itself seems not to be Sugar's—the real thing is a scruffy utilitarian building in Essex. All the episodes are videoed before being shown, and compressed together, so that (for example) all the shots of the telephone, always positioned downstairs to allow a few seconds dramatic hurry, no doubt are done at the same time. We are also told two versions of the finals are shot, therefore involving two exit scenes and two gleeful thanks scenes. And a complaint surfaced to the effect that the prize of £250,000 or whatever was paid by the BBC, and not Sugar. The indirect promotion of shops, factories, 'treats' must have had some value; the scenes with the hopefuls in retailers, and pitching to big organisations, were obviously unrealistic, since there must have been a camera crew, and whatever BBC deals and haggling went on are never mentioned. In fact, there seems no reason to believe any of it is genuine, though I haven't yet heard of actors being used—though some of the candidates were no doubt chosen for visual reasons: odd, or sexy, being two. I'd take a hefty bet that the "You're fired!" pointing finger shots were filmed individually.
Sugar and Electronics
As far as I know, the first big success was Sugar's word processor, which he produced a few years after IBM's PC was introduced. The IBM intimidated many people; and since many people only wanted a word processor, i.e. something to remember and retrieve their typing, and it could be made cheaply, this turned out to be a terrific business decision, made when Sugar was about 37. The cheapness was obtained by (for example) using a non-standard floppy of a format nobody else used. He also produced clone PCs. I remember seeing Sugar, at a Chicago electronics show in about 1984, apparently discussing PCs. For some reason, possibly European Union rules, anonymous clones weren't popular in the UK. Anyway; Amstrad PCs were popular. And clones of course took over: I can't remember the last time I saw an IBM PC.
Sugar's account of his own methods is (a) observing market leaders, (b) making better and cheaper products than them, and (c) selling to the mass market. His PCW shows the idea. There's an account in his autobiography of buying aerial dishes: he was quoted something like £30 each (from memory), but contacted a metal basher in the Midlands, who said 20 pence each. This shows how it can be better not to know things: techies would worry about metal properties or reflectivity or precision machining, but these turned out not to matter. By his own account, he didn't even know there are different shades of white in plastic casings, and didn't know red lights on machinery are an invariable danger signal in Germany. He seems to have little abstract grasp—is there some way to identify market gaps? What is needed for 'entrepreneurs' to flourish? How many types of expert colleagues are needed?—but very possibly this shows sound judgment.
On the other hand, microchip breakthroughs have not been made by Sugar: satnavs, flat screens, USB sticks, mobile phones, text messages, better hard disks, air mapping, the famous iPod...
Note: all the episodes are listed on Wikipedia, with participants' names, and all the events listed; most are on Youtube, though a few have copyright blocks. By now, the are more than 100 ex-participants, all of course older by up to 10 years.
For the millions of people who haven't seen any episodes, typically a parasitic or derivative task is set; say, for example, a new packet soup. One team after some argument selects, say, duck and celery, helped by wordless experts in a cavernous well-equipped factory. I think usually there's a discreet ad for the place. A name is picked; Quacker Soup, perhaps. A wordless person at his design computer produces (say) a design with a duck and stick of celery. In the easy world of advertising victims, adjectives are added: premium, slimming, new, natural, boosts the immune system. Then a presentation is made to 'industry experts', again with discreet advertising. Some sort of judgment is made, and a person is sacked with a theatrical "You're fired!" gesture.
An interesting variant is the buying task: either for total cost greater than the other, losing, team; or for immediate resale at some show, shop, or exhibition. It's Sugar-coated: a list of suppliers may be issued, and the teams told to select two or three items, with the seller choosing between them if there's a tie. As can be imagined, there's a lot of scope for flamboyant arguments and disputes and flirty price drops and manoeuvring.
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; the 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
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
• 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 no 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.
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. br />
Is Alan Sugar a Useful Idiot?
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.
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?
Watching a recent edition, with its collection of sad simpletons with their clich&ecaute;s, 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 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 advertising. The routine lies of modern advertising are assumed, without any thought, to be true. 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.
[ To big-lies main site | nukelies site | more reviews | Jews ]
Text, HTML, research, website Rae West first upload 2014-12-20