A business model called Disruption
Igor van Kaam

Since the Industrial Revolution, a remarkable phenomenon has been unfolding in the world. Can you guess what it is? No, it’s not climate change.

The development of science, the rise of machinery, telecommunications, and human rights were logical steps in human evolution. This progress is something billions of people can be grateful for, though not everyone, but I’ll get back to that later. Alongside this development, something else has been happening, akin to the rise of Christianity a thousand years ago. Human greed, or as I called it in my previous column, on the Fear of Scarcity (in Dutch), emerged.

Families who became wealthy through hard work took over the prominent positions once held by nobility and clergy and indulged in luxury, just as kings and cardinals had done for centuries. How the people thought, felt, or suffered mattered little to them, just as it didn’t matter to the Church. People were just cogs in the machine, and we still are.

Disruption for profit

I won’t claim the feudal system was the best. Most ordinary people lived in poverty but then again, peacefully on the countryside. Cities were busier, but people there were making a living to feed their families, at least in Europe. The rest of the world, although I know little of Asia, lived in close harmony with nature like the Aboriginals of Australia, the Americas, and Africa. European explorations and the resulting slave trade were the first signs of major change on Earth, but still the industrial revolution mainly relied on European labor.

The first wealthy industrialists realized that a society in harmony with nature and its surroundings wouldn’t be a successful business model. Once it became known what machines and raw materials could achieve, a perverse incentive arose to disrupt every aspect of society to create wealth and power. Let me explain…


In the filthy industrial cities, for the first time in history people started living in small houses, close together, under dreadful conditions. This was somewhat known from medieval cities, but they were never as large as the rapidly developing new cities. The result was predictable: so many people crammed together, hardly seeing daylight or breathing fresh air, was a huge shock to our immune system. This, coupled with the many explorations around the globe, led to outbreaks of diseases, and the healthy incentive to find remedies emerged. The perverse incentive quickly turned this development and production of medicines into a new industry that profited more from sick people than healthy ones. Any stimulus to live a healthy lifestyle faded into the background. The population had to work as hard as possible under just the right conditions not to die en masse, not to complain too much, but also not to become too strong and influential.

Natural remedies were banned in the West, and petrochemical medicine became mandatory. This was all led by oil baron John D. Rockefeller, who bought off his image by posing as a philanthropist. If you make many millions, you can afford to give one away, his advisor suggested, especially if that investment boosts your own industry. Rockefeller became the mastermind behind the pharmaceutical industry and many university medical faculties. It remains the world’s largest industry, profiting from unhealthy people.

This isn’t a complaint against the millions of doctors and nurses who work hard out of their calling to make sick people healthy again. They are part of the system but work out of love and compassion for their fellow humans, not for personal wealth or power. It was important they never knew the perverse incentives their suppliers of medicines and tools had. This was carefully orchestrated at the faculties.


Before the industrial revolution, money was something only the nobility possessed. They massively invested in the first industrial developments; some were lucky, but most were not. They were not used to thinking in terms of risks and had great trust in the new world, which was often not so trustworthy.

As money finally began to flow to all corners of society, the banking system developed rapidly. Initially driven by a healthy incentive that your money was safer there than at home under your mattress or floorboards. Banks could create more money by lending it out and charging interest. This interest was borne by hard-working people, starting a new flow of money on a one-way traffic street from citizens to increasingly wealthy and powerful families.

Banks could make money under all circumstances. In good times, when the economy flourished, and in bad times, during wars or when losses had to be written off. They developed a system where they covered for each other and penetrated governments, ensuring legislation made the saver and taxpayer bear the brunt when things went wrong. Banks, after all, serve a public function, despite being private commercial enterprises.

Banks are even smarter. They lend money to greedy corporate investors and gain some influence in return. Should things go wrong, they are first in line to claim their dues and meanwhile strategize to funnel even more savings and tax money from citizens up that one-way street. I’ll explain why at the end of this column.


As the population grew, technology advanced, and industrial thinking took root in people’s minds, agriculture was transformed. There’s nothing wrong with more efficiency in food production, right? Mass housing of animals in barns and the growing need for grain and corn changed agriculture from entirely organic to an industrial sector requiring more chemicals and pharmaceuticals to produce food for humans and livestock. A paradigm shift in agriculture and a win-win situation for banks and the petrochemical industry.

The current thorn in the flesh of the industrialists, who have now crowned themselves corporate investors, are the farmers. These small entrepreneurs still largely control the food chain. Through cooperatives, legislation, and the latest development: “food hubs,” big capital is gaining more grip on the food chain, the aorta of society. Conglomerates like Nestlé, Pepsico, Ahold, and Unilever increasingly dictate the terms under which farmers can operate, the requirements for the production process and the final product, and what it price it is sold for. But it doesn’t stop there. 

Producing food becomes even more efficient when done in factories. A new ideology is born: the vegetarian and vegan menu. Cows take up a lot of space, eat a lot, and produce a lot of waste, which isn’t efficient. Also, more people find it cruel that an animal has to die to feed a human. Combine these factors, and you have crowds of people willing to eat mealworms or no animal protein at all, instead of meat and fish that helped us develop our neo-cortex. “Cruel and bad for the environment” is the slogan. Profit and power for the corporate investors is the hidden goal. They call it cow-free milk at FrieslandCampina, one of the Dutch largest dairy producers.

A side ‘benefit’ of all the pesticides is that insect populations are declining, making the fabricated ideology of the industry more persuasive to people who believe their stories. The simple solution is to stop using pesticides and make agriculture sustainable and organic again or stop eating avocado’s and soja that traveled all over the world. But no, that would only strengthen the power of the local farmer, so we continue with import export and poisons until we have to other option than growing food in factories. I couldn’t have come up with a better plan.

Add periodic virus outbreaks or a genetic manipulation error in livestock or vegetables, and we have a food crisis. Farmers suffer, banks profit, the food chain narrows. People fear they won’t have enough to eat and become more obedient to the system. Fear triggers obedience, you know. Food becomes less and less nutritious, but this is compensated with sugar, salt, and artificial flavors and colors. People become fat and sick, and the pharmaceutical industry benefits. The perverse incentive continues.


When an old system gets stuck or things go too well for a country or region, organizing war is the best reset button you can find. First, you stir up patriarchal emotions and point to a scapegoat, making people to defeat the imagined enemy. Then you activate the weapon industry, funded by taxpayer money. You assure the ally of your continued support as long as he buys your weapons with the money you lend him. This loan later provides a lot of influence on the reconstruction of the destroyed cities and villages, which of course offers new opportunities for the same group of people, the corporate investors.

Before any war, you encourage polarization among the population under the guise of philanthropy, like the US did with UNWRA, or share ‘independent’ news. You influence what people see on TV and in newspapers, provide journalists with ready-made news via central news agencies, and create rebel and terrorist groups to stir things up, like the US did with the Taliban.

There’s always someone who wants to solve the unrest without seeing who caused it. Imagine sitting on a bench with three men, and the man on the far left keeps hitting the guy on the far right. The latter suspects the man in the middle and rebels against him. The instigator laughs as both men fight and then offers help to one and punishes the other. It’s like playing children’s games. Slobodan Milošević fell into this trap, leading to the Yugoslav Wars. Putin fell into this trap, leading to the invasion of Ukraine. But who’s the laughing third party? The arms industry that destroys everything or the banks that cheerfully lend money for the rebuilding. Let’s call it The Firm, for now.


A war triggers migration flows to Europe and the US. Their citizens still don’t realize the game they’re caught in, but their humanitarian feelings remain unchanged. “You help people in need. For sure.” Gradually, big numbers of ‘refugees’ build the Trojan Horse into their living environment, making it less a place where you feel you belong, although it’s your home. This happens so gradually and under the guise of solidarity that most people barely notice.

The consequences are severe. A population that no longer recognizes itself in a common identity seeks other anchors for safety and protection. Instead of finding cohesion amongst each other, people look for a new leader. Enter the corporate. But not just the government. Marketing ensures people identify with brands like Coca Cola and Tesla, and pop idols like Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, and Beyoncé, but also Joe Biden or Volodymyr Zelensky. It sounds complicated, but you can see who’s allowed to become popular and who isn’t. Spotify contributes greatly to this, but no one knows exactly how its algorithm works. Elon Musk was smart enough to expose the system behind Twitter, but people keep faith in their idols. “Elon Musk is a danger to democracy and Twitter should be banned!” they shout. And you listen. This is how propaganda works.

A population feeling unsafe among themselves looks to a strong leader for support. You might call this an effect of Cultural Marxism, teaching through art, music, literature, and education that everyone is equal (which is something very different than having equal rights), that religion or family are dirty words, that race doesn’t exist, and “happily married” no longer applies. Gender characteristics say nothing about who you really are, and if today you feel like a tree and tomorrow like a cat, the world must accept that, otherwise, they are discriminating against you. Shame!

You could say that the curiosity of Europeans to explore the world has evolved into an artificial scattering of thousands of ethnic groups across the globe under the guise of freedom, prosperity, and equality. After the abolition of slavery, I mean. On the one hand, people benefit from this, as everyone can earn a better living anywhere away from home, but eventually, the rich countries become richer, and the poor countries become more dependent on the rich. There you have it, the next genius power play, all thanks to a hugely profitable war industry. It’s like throwing a stick into an anthill from time to time and enjoy watching from a distance how those ants regroup or flee repeatedly. And the ants themselves, they are unaware and simply follow their natural instincts.


World War I could arise thanks to the industrial revolution or because of that. Germany had a prosperous industry and, with its many patents, could wield significant power over the world economy. Not only did this power go to their heads, but it was also a thorn in the side of the Americans due to their potential dependence on Germany. War was the best remedy. The crisis that followed allowed someone like Adolf Hitler to rise and restore order. We know the disastrous consequences of his policies, and after World War II, America decided it was enough. Despite the Russians driving the Nazis out of Berlin at the cost of 22 million of their soldiers, it was America that took the credit nine months after landing in Normandy.

“Never again, Nie Wieder,” so the Americans worked on their glorious image by demanding democracy worldwide. The Liberal World Order was established, where rule-based democracies were supposed to coexist peacefully. It sounds very attractive, but was it? The plan was to persuade countries to adopt democracy willingly, and if not, through coercion. This often worked well, and for countries that didn’t cooperate, there were economic sanctions to smoke out the small businesses or wars to topple the obstinate leader. When there was no reason to go to war, one was fabricated. The Taliban were created to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, and Osama Bin Laden was given membership in the Hector Pentalpha Freemasons lodge, where both Bush Senior and Junior were members. Colin Powell showed the world a powder letter with yellow flour and Saddam Hussein was supposedly hiding weapons of mass destruction, which later proved non-existent. When the Taliban disobediently went their own way, there was 9/11. The destruction of the World Trade Center in New York provided a golden opportunity to impose travel restrictions, digital and biometric identification, and terrorize innocent citizens to prevent it from happening again unless we stripped, searched, and scanned ourselves at airports. No one cares about a few human lives when you see people as ants. The Middle East remained turbulent for a long time…


When technology finally advanced to the point where we could observe and recognize everyone on the street and we all got addicted to our mobile phones, where identification applications could be conveniently installed, and online shopping and digital payments became the norm, the major blow could be struck. A pandemic.

How can you terrorize, lock down, diminish and brainwash a population all at once, while making the obedient and damage their mental and physical health? Eureka: develop seemingly harmless viruses under the guise of preventing future pandemics and turn a blind eye to the lab’s safety measures. Ensure the lab is in an unknown and disliked country that keeps its discretion and suppression of unfavorable information well in check. China! Corona hit many birds with one stone. People believed, were scared, called each other out on solidarity, were willing to make sacrifices, obey, wearing foolish looking non-working face masks, and inject themselves with the pharmaceutical dream: a cheap and highly profitable mandatory medicine for the entire world population. In a clever move, general practitioners were sidelined, and the situation declared a global pandemic, allowing the global health institution, the WHO, to determine the treatment protocol. General practitioners would have come up with well known and affordable remedies, but there’s no money to be made from that. All reports about available medication were declared misinformation, and dissenters were declared outlaws, labeled “science deniers” and a threat to public health. With all the news media and medicine authorizing agencies like the FDA and EMA “in the pocket,” that was a piece of cake.

Currently, naive governments worldwide are signing the WHO Pandemic Treaty to prevent another disaster. Whether that disaster will come, no one can predict, but if it does, all countries that have signed the bill, will lose their sovereignty. And from the COP in Dubai, we can learn that climate change could also be labeled as such a disaster.


The growing world population inevitably led to a larger human footprint on the globe. Forests gave way to plantations, oceans became shipping routes, meadows wind and solar parks, and residential areas a place for migrants. After failed ‘environmental’ campaigns about acid rain, nuclear weapons and endangered pandas, whales and polar bears the invisible enemy was found in carbon dioxide. An important gas that makes up about 0.04% of the air and is held responsible for global warming. Since the Industrial Revolution, we’ve been massively pumping oil out of the ground, and its combustion contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, so that’s the explanation for global warming. Every scientist who disputes this is declared crazy, accused of spreading misinformation, and denied any available research funding. He or she can pack up and struggle through the censorship on social media, obviously in the hands of, guess who: the corporates. 

By the way: Here is a link to a film that explains in understandable language how climate change works and why it has nothing to do with CO2, for the alert reader here. CO2 is certainly not the cause.

An invisible enemy like air is easily scapegoated. Historically, the Jew has always been assigned this fate, but now it’s CO2. Common air that leaves our bodies every time we exhale. CO2 is the gas that plants convert into oxygen, leaves, wood, and food for humans and animals through sunlight. Because no one wants the ice caps to melt and the sea level to rise six meters, models are brought out that predict exactly when that will happen. And then comes the accusing finger: “It’s your fault! You, with your large footprint on the world and your unbridled consumerism. You are guilty of destroying the planet.” A psychopath would relish it. 

People forget that since the 1950s, they’ve been bombarded with marketing to buy more and more new and advanced products. They’ve innocently become addicted to comfort, technology and luxury and will no longer be able to go back to life in the 1930s. So progress is the motto: the real polluter, the industry and its corporates, invent “the sustainable industry” as a solution. All old, trusted devices go to the scrap heap, and we encourage people to buy new sustainable products. An industry of annually $630 billion is born. Through clever manipulation, you urge government leaders to allocate billions in tax money for carbon emission reduction and transform landscapes and seas into windmill parks. Horizon pollution is a hoax. The Dutch Minister of Climate admits with a smile that €26 billion in tax money can slow global warming by perhaps 0.00036 degrees. According to the models, of course! Anyone who has looked at Earth’s temperature fluctuations over the past 800,000 years knows that they have a natural deviation thousands of times larger, so count your blessings.

Once again, people’s goodness is cleverly exploited by mentioning values like solidarity, passing on a healthy planet to future generations, and equal prosperity for all. Climate justice they call it. In practice, this healthy prosperity means you can’t make ends meet on a median European salary because energy is unaffordable, you can’t travel freely except within your 15-minute city, your privacy has completely disappeared, and you must work a lifetime to pay off the debt your leaders incur for your country. And let’s not even talk about the ecological disaster that windmills on land, sea, and in the air cause. You do it for each other or someone else. And if you don’t participate, you’re an egoist a conspiracy theorist or a fascist.

Another disadvantage of (not so) sustainable industry is the exploitation of poor countries. The African continent is artificially held in a position where they supply raw materials but not semi-finished or finished products. Africa earns only a small amount from its raw materials, and the profits are made in Western countries and China. With the help of “development aid,” African governments are deprived of the incentive to resist, maintaining a colonial structure. As I mentioned earlier, millions of people can be grateful for the industrial revolution, but not the average African. The influence of the four great powers, America, Europe, Russia, and China, keeps the largest continent, Africa, small, dependent, and poor.

Whoever watched the documentary I just referred to needs no further explanation about the expensive and painful joke being played under the guise of climate change and net-zero policy. You could rebel, but wouldn’t you lose your prosperity, comfort, and safe position in society by standing for your rights and freedom? We are and remain team players, people. So if the neighbor doesn’t join in, I won’t stick my neck out either.

The Firm

Anyone who has read carefully will realize that money and power have been driving forces behind scaling and globalization for centuries. Under the guise of a better world for everyone, a world is being created that is only great for the very richest. You don’t need a university degree to discover how the lines of money and power run, so let’s see who exactly is pulling the strings of the Business Model called Disruption.

Following the line of power, you end up at the political parties via the local council. The parliament forms a government, and this government participates in the European Union, BRICS, the Commonwealth, the West, the World Economic Forum, the World Bank, the United Nations. Public-private partnerships are forged in these places, which, through banks and shareholder structures, lead to a handful of companies, ultimately leading to BlackRock and Vanguard. The funny thing is that BlackRock owns part of Vanguard and vice versa. Vanguard is at the top and is an LLC with unknown shareholders.

Following the money, you learn a bit more. Banks are usually owned by institutional investors, who, through various channels, lead to the same BlackRock and Vanguard and one important family: The Rothschild family. Anyone who knows that these self-proclaimed, outspoken Zionists enabled the founding of the State of Israel, is referred back to the paragraph on war in this column. The Rothschild family has gathered a group of, it’s estimated, 3,000 influential people around them, consisting of a limited number of immensely wealthy families. Even the Vatican has parked its unimaginably large fortune with this family.

It goes too far to claim that the Rothschilds control the world’s money flows, but they probably have a significant influence on them. And in a world full of greedy, scared people, whoever has the money has the power. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Rothschild family are the major shareholders of Vanguard. That wouldn’t be so bad if they had the best interests of people at heart. But how well do you know people if you grew up behind the walls of your castle and were raised by nannies? What do you know about everyday life if you’ve never lacked anything, suffered any material discomfort and always achieved what you aimed for? 

What if the Rothschild family has quietly built an unimaginably large, global empire, disguised as philanthropists directing every scene of the play as carefully as possible? And that play is life on earth since the Industrial Revolution? What if they have embraced the model of disruption as a business model for their friendly families and companions? What if they repeatedly throw that stick into the anthill and laugh as we, driven by our instincts, piece things together while their cash register rings? And what if China and Russia don’t fully play along with their game to this day? Would that explain a lot of disruption?

This column doesn’t answer that question. You can answer it yourself. Go and snoop around a bit.

Igor van Kaam
Human Kind and some other stuff


I could have mentioned the Chernobyl disaster, which cast nuclear energy in a bad light for a long time. To meet the world’s energy needs, nuclear energy might be the only solution. It’s clean and, thanks to advancing technology, now safe. The Chernobyl plant was severely outdated, hence the disaster. It seems oil is still too profitable to give up and causes too much disruption to stop using it. Too bad for the sea creatures swimming in plastic and the microplastics in our organs, then…