Adam Swart | Can Protests Be Effective? Preventing Agent Provocateurs, Crowds on Demand

Summary of the episode’s main points

• Purpose and premise: The host, Chris Matthew, interviews Adam Swart, founder of Crowds on Demand, a long-running paid protest organization. The conversation explores whether protests can be effective, how they are funded/coordinated, and how to reduce risks such as escalation and agent provocateurs.

• What Crowds on Demand claims to do: Swart says the firm specializes in lawful, peaceful, First-Amendment-adherent demonstrations and “advocacy campaigns,” which may involve more than street protests—for example:

  • organizations and coalition-building
  • advertising
  • billboards
  • phone outreach

He emphasizes that the work is not strictly partisan and often targets nuanced, under-covered issues, including:

- local disputes
- business-related advocacy
- human-rights or corruption cases that might otherwise be ignored

• Why protests matter (even with skepticism): Swart frames protest as a communication and visibility tool—similar to creating a professional context for a cause—so people actually notice it. He compares protest to historical examples (such as major civil-rights imagery) to explain how crowds and media attention can help a message “break through.”

• Key problem: “siloed” media and fragmented audiences: Swart argues modern protest coverage is harder to achieve nationally because media is segmented into ideological “silos.” In earlier eras, mainstream outlets shared the same “reality-setting” images; today, different audiences receive different narratives, making it harder for any single protest to become widely understood.

• Agent provocateurs and preventing violence: When asked about provocateurs, Swart defines them as people inserted into a crowd to spark violence or discredit a side. He claims Crowds on Demand has had no such incidents in ~15 years, attributing this to:

  1. Selective cause/event targeting (he suggests highly controversial events may be “ripe” for infiltration)
  2. Screening/interviewing participants (about 15–20 minutes per person) to ensure commitment to lawful, peaceful advocacy
  3. Accountability: they do not shield wrongdoers—if someone violates the law, they would be reported to police

• Why protests escalate (and how to de-escalate): Swart describes escalation as a cycle involving aggressive cops and aggressive protesters. He emphasizes that leadership on both sides should intervene early, step back from trouble, and interrupt spirals. His core claim is that escalation continues when consequences are absent—so accountability for both police and protesters helps prevent “one action becoming a full-blown scuffle.”

• Social media vs. street participation: Swart argues social media can reduce physical attendance by allowing people to “participate” online. However, he also claims that in-person protest can become relatively more valuable when fewer people show up.

• Protest’s effectiveness depends on strategy, not slogans: He argues protest should be part of a broader advocacy campaign with clear demands and objectives. As an example, he cites Occupy Wall Street, arguing that protest without cohesive ideology or demands limited tangible outcomes. For major change, he says movements must also persuade mainstream people—something he argues is harder today due to fragmented media.

• Example of persuasion and political support: Swart discusses how Donald Trump gained support by persuading people who disliked him personally but voted based on alternatives and dissatisfaction. He connects this to the importance of reaching “normal people” for protest success.

• Local issue emphasis: data centers: The host raises concerns about the growth of data centers. Swart says there is significant interest and that Crowds on Demand is watching closely, with discussion ideally happening at the local level so residents can demand fair outcomes.

• Protesting powerful institutions (Big Tech/Big Pharma): Swart argues traditional political channels often fail because major institutions influence government and legislation. He suggests lawful assembly may be one of the few accessible tools that can create pressure beyond hearings and media cycles.

• Surveillance state concerns: Swart says cameras and surveillance may not directly stop lawful protest, but he worries about civil liberties—particularly surveillance being repurposed for non-law-enforcement conduct (for example, stalking or personal abuse facilitated by law-enforcement access to public-camera infrastructure).

• Accountability when media doesn’t care: Responding to skepticism that ruling elites don’t care, Swart argues protest can make wrongdoing harder to ignore—especially when mainstream media attention is constrained by corruption, overload, or shifting priorities.

• Middle East / anti-war protests: Swart notes that anti-war protests have not been as large as expected, attributing this partly to both parties’ positions: he says Republicans are broadly pro-war, while Democrats are often not strongly anti-war. He also argues the U.S. effectively operates like it has more than two parties (isolationist vs. neo-conservative on the right; establishment vs. progressive on the left), though the center dominates political control.

• Elections and voting: On whether votes remain effective amid fraud/infiltration concerns, Swart distinguishes:

  • He claims he has not seen evidence that elections are “rigged” in the sense of votes not being counted.
  • He acknowledges money and misleading political advertising can influence voters, but that does not necessarily prove vote-count manipulation.

• Transparency in Political Demonstrations Act: Swart supports a proposal stating that for rallies over 500 people, organizers must disclose funding sources and vendors, aiming to improve public understanding of who backs large demonstrations.

• Advice to viewers (beyond politics): Swart closes with practical advocacy guidance for everyday disputes (e.g., rent issues, insurance denials):

  1. Clearly articulate your objective.
  2. Identify the person with real decision-making power.
  3. Persuade in ways meaningful to the other party.
  4. Seek something consequential, not lip service—and be persistent.

---

Presenters / contributors

• Chris Matthew (Host)
• Adam Swart (Guest; Founder, Crowds on Demand)