Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The CEO of a national crowd-for-hire agency is raising alarms about potential exploitation of America’s protest landscape by paid agitators and foreign influences. Adam Swart, head of Crowds on Demand, shared his insights on the evolving dynamics of public demonstrations and their susceptibility to manipulation.
Swart expressed concern that various actors driven by profit are increasingly focusing on chaos instead of genuine civic engagement. He stated that these individuals and groups, whether domestic or foreign, aim to create division rather than fostering unity.
As the planned nationwide demonstration dubbed No Kings approaches on October 18, organizers aim to voice their discontent regarding political elitism and government overreach. However, Swart believes that such events can become ripe for exploitation.
He noted that his company received inquiries about participating in the No Kings protest, but he declined, deeming it likely to fail in authentic persuasion efforts, effectively labeling it as “a dud in the making.” Swart pointed to rehashed messages that often yield the same unproductive results.
Organizers supporting the No Kings movement have countered Swart’s claims, asserting that they anticipate turnout that matches or exceeds previous large-scale demonstrations, which reportedly attracted around 5 million participants.
A spokesperson for the organizers emphasized that the intent of the protest is not to generate funds or energize voters but to build a unified resistance against authoritarianism. They highlighted the movement’s commitment to nonviolence and elaborate security training for participants.
Furthermore, the spokesperson assured that they are proactively monitoring online activities to mitigate any perceived threats, painting the No Kings event as well-structured and focused on peaceful expression.
The first protest, according to the spokesperson, experienced minimal incidents, underscoring a legacy of peaceful civic engagement embedded in American tradition.
Despite a supportive base from certain progressive circles, Swart cautioned that his concerns extend beyond any specific movement. He articulated the emerging protest industry, comprising operatives and consultants who monetize political outrage.
Swart remarked that many modern movements appear less as authentic grassroots initiatives and more as forms of performative activism, primarily aimed at gaining funding or online attention.
He stressed his intention to advance meaningful causes, having turned down lucrative contracts because they would contribute to divisiveness. His goal is to foster thoughtful public discourse rather than provocative demonstrations that lack substance.
Swart warned that motivations behind many protests may not be as transparent as they seem, with external interests sometimes mirroring legitimate advocacy to sow confusion about the source of an event.
In his view, both domestic and international opportunists are exploiting political polarization for personal gain, harnessing outrage to foster division. He pointed out that amid incidents, both sides are quick to cast blame, while wider forces leverage that discord for profit.
Swart’s insights reflect broader national security concerns regarding foreign actors employing disinformation strategies to amplify divisive rhetoric within the U.S. Recent intelligence assessments indicated that countries like Russia, China, and Iran might intensify unrest around key political events.
Moreover, he placed significant blame on major social media platforms for perpetuating division by monetizing controversial content. According to Swart, these companies thrive on negative engagement, which creates a cycle of outrage.
He posited that the issue transcends individual political ideologies, suggesting that the engagement economy incentivizes divisive content creation. Swart remarked that figures like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg profit from societal division rather than aligning with specific ideological stances.
Swart sees the manipulation of public sentiment as a looming national security threat. He warned that certain agitation networks are possibly working to destabilize the country for financial or geopolitical interests.
He underscored that this crisis is not simply tied to one protest or ideology; instead, it reveals a perilous trend where misinformation transforms authentic public expression into tools for chaos and profit.
As he emphasized the need for purpose within the protest space, Swart advocated for a cultural shift to focus on constructive dialogue. He posited that without addressing these issues, society faces the risk of continued manipulation from those who thrive in conflict.
In a hopeful tone, Swart suggested that transparency and awareness could mitigate these dangers. His advice was clear: promote upward alliances rather than downward blame, focusing on coalition-building instead of divisiveness.
