June 9, 2025 • 58 mins
What if protests aren't what they seem? Adam Swart, founder and CEO of Crowds on Demand, pulls back the curtain on an industry few understand but many encounter through news coverage. As the leader of "the largest protest company in the world," Swart reveals how his business has spent 13 years orchestrating advocacy campaigns, demonstrations, and PR stunts across America.The conversation challenges conventional wisdom about grassroots activism. "When we organize a protest, we pay people to attend and therefore they attend," Swart explains, detailing how compensation takes many forms beyond cash—from social validation and Instagram clout to organizational pressure and personal agendas. Swart makes a compelling case: if Tucker Carlson earns millions expressing opinions while being considered sincere, why would protesters earning hundreds be viewed as inauthentic?Particularly fascinating is Swart's breakdown of media manipulation tactics. Effective protests tap into existing narratives media outlets already support, sometimes deliberately antagonizing opponents to generate coverage. "You want to leave bait," he explains, comparing the relationship between opposing media outlets to professional wrestling—apparent enemies serving the same financial ecosystem. The discussion ventures into darker territory with revelations about foreign influence operations, including how countries like China pressure their diaspora communities into participating in demonstrations.The hosts and Swart explore political independence, the power of swing voters, and how both major parties fail their base. "As soon as you pledge allegiance to a particular party, you give them power over you," Swart observes, noting how Democrats primarily speak to educated white liberals while failing to understand communities they claim to represent. Their conversation on reparations, c
Fit, Healthy & Happy PodcastWelcome to the Fit, Healthy and Happy Podcast hosted by Josh and Kyle from Colossus...
Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify
NYPTALKSHOW EP.1 HOSTED BY RON BROWNLMT & MIKEY FEVER
#consciousness #spirituality #meditation #love #awakening #spiritualawakening #spiritual #mindfulness #healing #energy #selflove #yoga #enlightenment #wisdom #peace #lawofattraction #inspiration #life #awareness #soul #motivation #universe #lightworker #nature #quotes #happiness #believe #higherconsciousness #art #gratitude #hiphop #rap #music #rapper #trap #beats #hiphopmusic #newmusic #producer #artist #love #dance #rapmusic #rnb #dj #art #hiphopculture #explorepage #soundcloud #spotify #rappers #freestyle #musicproducer #youtube #bhfyp #beatmaker #instagood #s #musician #follow
#newyork #nyc #newyorkcity #usa #losangeles #miami #love #brooklyn #california #manhattan #ny #fashion #london #music #atlanta #photography #hiphop #art #newjersey #florida #instagram #instagood #chicago #canada #texas #paris #travel #longisland #rap #explorepage
#healthy #fitness #healthylifestyle #healthyfood #health #food #fit #motivation #workout #lifestyle #gym #love #vegan #weightloss #foodie #fitnessmotivation #instagood #nutrition #training #foodporn #instafood #fitfam #diet #bodybuilding #yummy #healthyliving #exercise #healthyeating #wellness #delicious
#currentevents #currentaffairs #news #gk #politics #upsc #ssc #knowledge #podcast #gujarati #ias #discussion #gpsc #debate #generalknowledge #instagram #currentaffairsquiz #politicalscience #youth #gujarat #v
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
What's going on.
Everybody is Ron Brown, lmt,the people's fitness
professional, alongside myco-host, mikey Fever, and this
is a New Yorkers perspective.
We have Adam Swart on today,founder and and CEO of Crowds on
Demand.
Nice to meet you.
How are you feeling thisevening?
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Excellent, as always.
Great to be with you both andto chat a little bit about the
business and anything else youguys want to talk about.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Great, great.
Okay, so you know.
First I want to go into yourhistory a little bit.
Um, where are you from?
Speaker 2 (00:49):
So I'm from California, um from the Bay.
Area Um what's called a Bayarea for the most part, but
lived, uh, for a few years inIreland growing up, so did that.
Then went to school in LosAngeles at UCLA, and that's kind
(01:11):
of where I started my business.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Gotcha, gotcha.
Okay, so you kind of like gaveus a snippet.
So how did you grow up?
What was your childhood like?
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Oh, pretty good.
I, I mean, I think I was alwaysprobably the kid who talked out
of turn a little bit in school.
I was very opinionated.
I always wanted to figure outwho was in charge and who could
actually get me what I waslooking for.
So it's like, if you're a kid,I was always the annoying kid
who probably negotiated thegrades.
Um, you know, I'll try to charmthe teacher a little bit.
(01:45):
Um, you know, I uh, you know,as a kid I think I was always
very interested in politics, uh,very interested in, like, how
the world works, um, kind oftangentially, was always a train
lover.
Love, always loved trains.
That was a big interest of mine.
So yeah, I think I was a nicekid for the most part.
(02:08):
I mean, most kids are a littlebrat.
So I think I probably was alittle bit of a brat too, but
yeah, a little bit of a mix.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Gotcha.
So were you born like in thelate 90s.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Oh well, thank you, I appreciate that.
Early 90s, OK, so 91.
So I'm 34 now, so I've been atthis business for 13 years now.
So since college I've beenrunning my business Nice.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Nice, nice.
Ok, all right, so let's, let'sgo right into it.
So what is your businessexactly?
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Okay, so crowds on demand is the largest protest
company in the world.
So what we do, it's a now it's,it's easier to be a largest
protest company than to be thelargest computer software
company, for sure, um, becausethere aren't.
There's not really a lot ofcompetition, but what we do is
we allow people, allow people toput together advocacy campaigns
(03:07):
, protests, pr stunts, all kindsof things like that, and all
across the country and evenoccasionally, internationally.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
So like a flash mob on demand, something like that,
absolutely Flash mobs.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Kind of like what we call PR stuff.
So let's just say, you're acompany you really want to, you
know, evangelize your product,you know, in an unconventional
manner.
We do that right, so we'll helpyou promote your product, you
know, outside of conference oronline or kind of in the media
(03:46):
as well.
So what we do is our specialty,is using the power of protest
and the power of people, youknow, to put together these kind
of events, these displays thatget a ton of attention and that
raise awareness, whether it'syour product, your company or
your cause.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Gotcha Okay.
So would you say that a lot ofthese protests going on, they
are possibly using a companylike yours?
Speaker 2 (04:15):
They may not use a company, but they are generally.
What I would say is I think theroot of your question is are
people who are protesting beingcompensated?
And the answer is generally yes, and there's a lot of ways to
receive compensation, right, sothere's cash compensation.
Like our company, what we do iswe pay people to attend, so
(04:38):
that's how we guaranteeattendance.
That's very valuable for ourcustomers, because, when we
organize a protest, we paypeople to attend and therefore
they attend, and that's a greatservice to our customers, right,
but what our what we also do,though, is what.
What you're talking about inregards to the, the protest that
(05:03):
you see?
Yeah, a lot of.
There's a lot of ways to getcompensation.
So, for example, flexing onInstagram, in my opinion, is
compensation.
So a lot of the people, forexample I don't know whether you
guys agree with this, but Ithink a lot of the like the read
, the housewives who went andattended the BLM rallies in 2020
, we're not passionate aboutblack Lives Matter.
(05:25):
They were there because theywanted to seem like they were
part of the cause, that theyunderstood the movement and
posts on Instagram and people tobe like wow you're great.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
That's very common.
You got people who are theirphoto opportunists.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Mike doesn't like the photo ops.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
I don't like photo opportunists.
They go there, they dilute thecause.
They're not as compassionate,their attention is not pure
Correct.
You know like you know peoplelike George Soros and them.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Sharpton right, who is who's kind of a major grifter
and uh, you know, in the blackcommunity they actually kind of
know he's a fraud, but actuallyhis audience is more like white
liberals, because white liberalsdon't know he's a fraud.
So so the challenge is theyactually believe he speaks for
black America.
So when he speaks he's speakingto them.
He's not actually speaking tothe black community.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
So he has a point.
Ron, give him applause.
He has a point.
Yeah, I don't Listen whetheryou're Black or white.
I don't deal with ambulancechasers.
I don't deal with ambulancechasers.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Here's my thing on Al Sharpton, though this is my
view on Al Sharpton.
Now is he an ambulance chaserand things like that?
Okay, I get the point.
However, like doing this work,mike, we've done this work.
This work is not easy, I know.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
It's not.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
It's not easy, like the activism work.
It's not easy, no, it's notRight, and so many things are
coming at you from differentangles, in different ways.
I think that al sharpton hastried the best he can and then,
once he's he figured out likethere's money behind it.
I think that's where he started.
(07:18):
It started to get a littlediluted, a little bit correct,
correct.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
I mean, look, we're all human.
I don't think he's an evilperson or anyone else isn't.
You know, I I think moralityjudgments are separate from, hey
, this guy's kind of a grifter.
I mean, there are plenty ofgrifters around, I mean.
But I want to get back to yourquestion.
But I kind of think that alsharpe in the real housewives
example, it kind of illustratesthere's different forms of
(07:42):
compensation.
So so, for example, laborunions also basically compensate
people to attend protests.
Right, if you're in a union,you're expected to attend
certain demonstrations, certainevents.
Right, and if you attend, youwill find that you get better
shifts, better treatment.
If you don't attend, you willfind that you are getting worse
(08:06):
shifts and worse treatment,right.
So, even though that, so that'sa compensated protester, right.
So I mean I would say I alwaysuse this line, but basically,
like, think about Woodstock, youknow the Vietnam War protests,
all that.
I mean a lot of those guys werethere to smoke pot and get laid
right.
So in a sense of, so I thinkthe the challenge we're talking
(08:27):
about compensating protesters isthat there's so many different
forms of compensation that it'svery difficult to say okay, well
, well, cash compensation is, isbad, but other forms of
compensation aren't.
I mean, the other thing is likeI actually think it's right for
(08:48):
people to get paid to protestbecause, frankly, um, talk show
hosts are paid, right, like youthink about.
Look like tug of carlson, right.
Rachel maddow, right, these guysare paid eight figures, right,
they're paid tens of millions ofdollars.
So those guys are paid tens ofmillions of dollars to express
(09:10):
their opinions, right, andpeople generally say, okay, well
, their opinions are sincere,okay, well.
So if they're getting paid tensof millions of dollars and are
generally assumed to be sincere,you're saying a protester
getting paid in the hundreds ofdollars, they're not sincere.
How do you square those facts?
Speaker 3 (09:32):
I got you Basically.
To sum it up, and I don't wantto sound offensive to the common
folk the game is to be sold,not told.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Well, sure Say that again.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
The game is to be sold, not told.
Sure, sure say, say that againthe game is to be sold, not told
yeah, sure, sure, I respectthat, I respect that.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Yeah, I mean, well, I think, I mean I don't, I'm, but
, by the way, I don't thinkyou're being sold when you're
expecting you're getting paid toexpress your opinion, because I
actually it's.
I think it's important becauseif you're coming out there,
you're paid to express youropinion, not to have an opinion,
so, sold, I think the word.
(10:10):
When you say sold, the kind ofimplication is I sold out, right
, I'm being paid and thereforeI'm changing my opinion.
I would say what we do atCrowds on Demand is we are
essentially our people are paidto express their sincere
opinions.
So you see, the distinction islike we're not trying to get
(10:33):
people to sell out.
Nor again would people sell outfor what we compensate them,
what we compensate people enoughto show up for something they
already believe in.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
Got you, ok, all right.
People enough to show up forsomething they already believe
in.
Got you, okay, all right.
How do you see that, mike?
Because it's it's.
We don't come from that.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
We don't, we don't come from that close like yeah,
because, and what I reallylisten, everybody you know has
their angle, has their agendaand I get what you're coming
from, because what he's doing isum, you know it's a crowds in
the man, because during thepresidential um campaigns they
were doing the same thing bustloads of people to come in, you
know you.
You know you like Trump, youlike Kamala?
(11:13):
All right, here's a t-shirtabsolutely here's a hot dog, a
drink.
You know I'm saying $40 and callit a day, so I get what I get.
I get what he's coming from.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
It's a business well, it's just a business.
And, by the way, like, oh yeah,a lot of those people at those
rallies are actually republicanor democrat staffers, right?
So if you, let's just imaginethat that's a good point new
york.
Let's just say you work for anew york city um council members
, right, your job is not torallies.
(11:44):
Your job is to work on billsthat help the people of New York
, right, but essentially, one,one kind of tacit part of your
job is to actually attendrallies.
You see what I'm saying?
So, because if you're aDemocrat council member, you're
expecting your staff members toessentially go out and like to
(12:08):
the rallies, right, and if they,even though that's not part of
their job, so a lot of thepeople who are going to these
things actually don't reallysupport like.
I mean, it's not that theydon't support it because they're
Democrats, but they're, they'rebeing incentivized to go.
So but okay, let me.
Let's take a step back for asecond about, like what paid
(12:29):
protesting is right.
Well, what all kind of protestis is I think people make a
mistake when they think that thegoal of a protest is to show
public support.
And oh, okay, there's 200people who demonstrated on one
side of the issue and 50 peopleon the other.
Well, let's just assume youknow, four out of five people
(12:53):
support this issue.
You see what I'm saying?
I got what you're saying.
That's an inaccurate way to lookat it.
The way to look at it is what aprotest does is it gets
people's attention.
It gets the media's attention,it gets whoever you're
protesting his attention.
It forces you to say let's lookat this issue, right.
Ultimately, you can spend asmuch money and have as many
(13:16):
protesters as possible, but ifthe issue doesn't resonate, you
will not get results, so like.
So, if you think about everymovement, from gay rights, civil
rights, maga, tea party, blmit's all backed by a ton of
money, right, but that doesn'tdelegitimize the causes, right?
(13:38):
All that means is that thereare a lot of wealthy people who
want to back the cause and wantto make sure that it gets the
visibility that to grow, because, like, for example, money does
not guarantee visibility.
I mean, look at, look at jebbush.
Jeb bush ran for president in2016.
I'm sure they spent about 150to 200 million dollars on his
(14:01):
campaign for him to get like twopercent.
Right, he got laughed off stage, right, but what his money did
was it got him noticed.
Everyone, everyone knew who JebBush was.
They all just decided theydidn't want to vote for Right?
That's the effect that moneyhas.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
So I have a question for you, right so?
Are you funding the free Diddycampaign outside of courthouse?
Is that your company?
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Well, I mean look, I'll put it.
I mean look.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
I'll put it this way Mike, good question.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
If I started commenting on every like
potential thing, then I wouldget myself in this situation
where it's like, oh well, if youdon't comment, then we assume
you are behind it, right.
So I don't like to be like, oh,we are or we aren't behind it.
(14:58):
The only thing that we kind ofwhere we are clear that we don't
do, is illegal activity, right?
So anything that's kind of likebreaking the law, blocking a
street without a permit, youknow, violence, vandalism,
whatever we don't associate withthat.
You know we don't mess withthat.
You know that is not how we runour business with that.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
We don't mess with that.
That is not how we run ourbusiness.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
All right, so I may have to hire you, man, make
oxtails cheap again.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
It's all messing with you, man.
Thank you, adam, you broke itdown for us.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Yeah, he's the comedian of the two.
So okay, protests aren'ttalking points, protests aren't
grassroots.
I think you covered that I havea point on Diddy right.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Like Diddy still deserves representation right,
he still deserves a lawyer.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
Due process and everything.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
yes, Now, if people are protesting.
I don't think people areprotesting violently, but if
people are, I condemn it.
But people have a right toprotest in favor of P Didion's
claim he didn't do anythingwrong.
I mean, I think that's you know, people can make that decision
for themselves, but ultimatelythat's for a jury to decide.
I don't find that in many casesthat protests have an impact on
(16:11):
court trials.
I think people they do a prettygood job of insulating the jury
from public pressure, but on anextreme level they might.
But I think P Diddy deserves hisday in court and he deserves to
have people who support him ifthey do.
So.
You know, I don't condemnpeople for going out and saying,
hey, let's look at.
(16:31):
And also I also don't condemnpeople, in the case of P Did you
, for saying, hey, let's lookcritically at the evidence, like
, because people just sort ofthere's a lot of the media can
always make something look badand say, ok, he's this pervert,
he's done all this bad stuff,but I think it's important to
look at.
Well, he may be questionable,but what has he done that's
(16:55):
illegal and that has to beproven in a court of law and
that should be litigated.
I'm not, I'm not taking PDiddy's side.
I'm just saying like I don'tsupport the idea of like that he
doesn't deserve people outthere to support.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
I understand I was just messing with you with that,
but I get what you're comingfrom.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
I get what you're saying we have a question.
What about crisis actors?
Speaker 2 (17:17):
Okay, so let me define it.
I don't know whether you guysknow what this term is.
I mean, I don't really like theterm because I think it's kind
of a little bit of fake news.
It's the idea that a lot ofworld events essentially are
staged.
So it's basically like, on anextreme level, like a mass
shooting is actually staged,like the shooting never happened
(17:38):
.
Um, the people who aresupposedly victims are actually
actors.
I mean, I think the challengeis, if that were true, you would
have a ton of people out therebeing like yeah, I was a crisis
actor, I was hired toimpersonate this person and have
direct evidence that to thateffect.
(17:58):
Um, there really hasn't beenany.
So, honestly, I I don'tnecessarily buy this like crisis
actor idea.
I mean, I think there's adifference between a crisis
actor and a false flag.
So a false flag is kind of likeokay, we're liberals, we're
going to have protesters, kindof like, look like they're
conservatives and then saystupid things or vice versa,
(18:20):
like, yeah, that happens all thetime, but when we're really
talking about crisis actors, Imean that that would be like a
very, very, um illegal activity.
So I think if you were to havethis happening, you would have a
lot more people talking aboutit, so I don't buy it.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Yeah, that came from Alex Jones, that whole Alex
Jones.
I know him, I know him.
Oh, you do.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Oh, that's what's up.
I know the guy, and I knowbecause he has said things that
are inaccurate about what we doat Crowds on Demand.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
So, oh, wow, so he, he knows, he knows, you guys.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Oh yeah, oh yes, oh yes, we know him and he knows us
, you know.
Look, I think they I've evenextended an invite and said I'm
happy to clear the air with himbecause I'm open, because I
think he's said things that arefalse and I think he's just I
don't know whether he'smisinformed or purposefully
spreading things that are false,but but yeah, he definitely has
(19:19):
said things that are provablyfalse.
But I'll give him the benefitof good intentions, but I'd love
to actually clarify some ofwhat he said, because some of
this stuff isn't really true.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Yeah, gotcha gotcha so foreign fingerprints.
What is that exactly?
Speaker 2 (19:38):
yeah, well, you're talking about foreign countries
and their ability to influencethings in the united states yeah
, that's totally a thing?
Yeah, it's totally a thing,yeah it's totally a.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Thing.
Can you give me an example?
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Well, I mean this has been happening, I mean there's.
Well, let me give you anon-protest example.
China has a series of policestations in the United States.
Did you know that, even in NewYork City, their goal of those
police stations is to police theChinese community and the
(20:11):
Chinese American community.
So they have and these areillegal, to be clear.
But where they have theiroperatives, they're monitoring
student groups and, for example,let's just say the.
But here's where it relates toprotests.
Let's just say the president ofChina is visiting, they will
let all the Chinese communityknow.
(20:34):
You're expected to come outthere to welcome him and to
cheer for him.
Or if there's some rally about,like Tibet or Taiwan or
whatever, they will tell thosepeople they have to be like at a
counter rally.
So what's kind of interestingabout that is and you might ask
well, any leverage that theChinese government has.
(20:56):
So let's just say you live inthe United States but your
mother and father live in China.
Well, that's leverage.
You know, if you don't do whatthey say, maybe your mother
loses her job or maybe they takeaway your you know aunt's house
somewhere.
You know what I mean.
They, they're, they've proven awillingness to do that, right.
So that's kind of one example,um, but but even like in a and
(21:21):
and this has been very welldocumented that this is
occurring, um, and it's kind ofconcerning, and a lot of the
those stations have beendismantled.
But the other thing that that'sworth noting is that, for
example, if a foreign countrywants to funnel money into
protest causes, they just needto.
All it is is layers, right?
Do you know what Russian dollsare?
(21:42):
Yeah, so you've got littledolls that fold into bigger
dolls.
Okay, so what all you need todo is like what you have is like
a little doll in the center,right, the people on the street
don't know that they're beingfunded by some shady entity, and
(22:15):
the shady entity doesn't have apaper trail to tie them back.
No, does it matter so much forlegal protests?
No, but it matters more forillegal protests, because if
you're funding something illegal, presumably you wouldn't want
to have your fingerprints on itso prime example who's funding
Antifa?
Oh well, I mean, a ton of peoplecould be.
I mean, look, I want to beclear that I don't want to name
(22:37):
names, and the reason is becauseI don't want to get sued for
defamation.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
Right.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
So I can't.
And part of it is you have tobe clear that because of this
Russian doll model, I suspectthat there are a lot of very
wealthy billionaires who arebehind funding some of this
stuff.
But it's indirect, so there'sno paper.
So if you kind of say, oh, thisbillionaire is funding Antifa,
(23:04):
they'll send you a cease anddesist and they'll say they're
not.
And maybe they're not, maybethey are, but if they are,
they're going to have enoughlevels of separation to
themselves.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
Got you.
That makes sense, Understood.
It's down the rabbit hole, bro.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
It's deep yeah man, it's kind of scary.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
But I don't even know your guys's politics.
It sounds like you guys arekind of pragmatic people.
Independence is that, is that anaccurate statement I'll say
yeah, pretty much and, by theway, I think that's great.
That's me too, by the waybecause as soon as you pledge
allegiance to a particular party, you are giving them power over
(23:47):
you, and the most powerfulthing you can do in any election
is say my vote is up for grabs.
You better do the things that Iwant you to do or you're not
going to get my vote Right.
Because as soon as you say,like, rural America votes
Republican, no matter what, well, what have the Republicans done
(24:08):
for rural America, right, nomatter what?
Well, what have the Republicansdone for rural America right?
Black America votes forDemocrats, you know, in many
respects, no matter what,although that's changing.
And what have Democrats donefor Black America, right.
So the most powerful thing youcan do is to say I'm a swing
voter.
You better actually do thethings that are going to matter
(24:29):
for me, or my family or mycommunity.
Because when you say thatyou're putting the parties on
notice, to say we better dosomething or we're going to lose
their votes to the other side.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Like you know, brother Ron and I, we had done
the community work we all forthe people.
We came to a point, through ourstudies and everything else,
and realized like this game ofracism and prejudice is
something that has beeninstilled into people to create
fear and division.
We're more into, like you know,people it sounds like a lullaby
but equity, equality andrespect for all you know.
(25:07):
So that's basically it with us.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
I agree with all of that, except I don't 100% agree
with equity, because equityimplies equal outcomes, which
isn't always possible in mostsocieties.
But I completely agree withequality and equal opportunity,
because I think you have to haveequal opportunity and respect
for different opinions, becauseone thing really lost is the
(25:32):
respect for different people'sopinions.
Oh, I see a question.
Do you want me to answer it?
Yes, sir, what safeguards youhave in place to prevent misuse
of crowdsourced labor, like fakereviews, manipulated data or
unethical task fulfillment?
Well, I think the safeguards isthat I vet every client myself,
(25:57):
so if it's something that wefeel like isn't contributing to
society, then we probably won'twork with them.
I mean, some of these things arekind of like a little bit vague
, like what is unethical taskfulfillment?
(26:17):
Don't even know what that is,um, but uh, fake reviews.
I mean I think there's a caseto be made.
This, like the whole reviewindustry is kind of bullshit,
like, um, like yelp, I don'treally care.
Like if people want to do fakereviews and like I just assume
that fake reviews are part ofthe system and like you know
that and that's just, that'sjust the game.
I mean so, um, yeah, you got totake what you read on Yelp or
(26:39):
TripAdvisor, google reviews, allwith like a grain of salt
because, especially likesomeone's controversial, you're
like.
And then they own a restaurant.
You're like I got foodpoisoning there.
Well, it's like.
Well, how, how do you know that?
You know what I mean.
(26:59):
So I don't know.
I I don't know about that, butwe certainly have safeguards
against people who we think arehave nefarious motives, and that
safeguard is my, our vettingprocess got you.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
So this the next talking point, is anti-trump
strategy.
The hands-off protests, okay,are meant to damage trump
through optics and policy, yes,not policy.
Can you break that down?
Speaker 2 (27:19):
well, I think, um, I think hands-off was sort of, if
you think of, like theanti-trump movements, uh, since
he took office for the secondtime, I think hands-off
effective, because anythinghands-off the the thing is trump
, um, I mean obviously, to hissuper fans, like he's he's god
and to his detractors he's he'sthe devil.
(27:40):
But I think, if you think aboutlike the people in the middle,
what brings them to like trumpis, yeah, they think he's kind
of like a crazy, but he's acrazy genius, you know.
Sure, he talks crazy, butultimately the results are there
.
So I have a good job, my 401kis doing well, you know, our
(28:00):
community is safe, right.
So there are a lot ofindependent voters that will
look at those kind of factorsand say, ok, well, I might not
like Trump's personality, butultimately, whatever he's doing,
there's a method to the madness.
But, conversely, like duringCOVID, or when you know like the
tariffs and you know priceincreases and you know stock
(28:21):
market crash, it's like, no,he's not a mad genius, he's just
a crazy person, right?
So I think hands off reallyspoke to those anxieties of like
, wow, is there a method to themadness or is he really doing
crazy things that just put us atrisk for no reason.
And so I think what I likeabout hands off is it appeals to
(28:42):
independent voters.
Whenever Crowds on man does aprotest, whether it's for a
company or a cause, I always tryto think who are we trying to
persuade, right?
And how are we working topersuade them?
And if the answer is we havenothing that would persuade
someone who doesn't know or ison the other side, then I'm like
(29:02):
, well, what are we doing?
You're just kind of wastingyour money and your time.
So I think it's effective, Ithink.
I think I think Democrats tendto be their own worst enemy,
like they have a good talkingpoint but then they kind of get
lost among all this other stuff.
And you know every identitygroup has to have its say and
(29:22):
you know the woke stuff is justnot popular.
Defund, the police isn'tpopular.
So I think they do best whenthey say, hey, we're the
grown-ups in the room and Ithought hands off really spoke
to them so control of narrative,I got you think thing.
Speaker 3 (29:39):
The control, the way you think, form your person.
It basically form a narrativefor you, form the story for you
and your opinions.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
I got you and and that, and.
That brings us right into thenext talking point media
manipulation.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, pretty much.
So is the media manipulated?
Yes, it is manipulated, I agree.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
Very much.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
So these campaigns are engineered to go viral and
shape public perception.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
A hundred percent.
A hundred percent, I mean to beclear.
Not all of our campaigns areengineered to go viral.
Some of them are designed toget local news coverage, or some
of them might be designed topersuade certain people at a
certain company.
So not all of what we do isgeared toward media, but
certainly some of what we do isand of course you play to the
(30:27):
media that you think will besupportive of you, because think
about this so right-wing mediais always going to try to make
right-wing causes bigger andlook smarter.
Left-wing media is always goingto try to make left-wing causes
look bigger and look smarter.
So if Fox News interviews aconservative protester and that
protester says something stupid,they probably won't air it,
(30:50):
whereas if they're covering aleft-wing protest and that
protester says something stupid,they probably won't air it,
whereas if they're covering aleft-wing protest and that
protester says something stupid,they almost certainly will air
it.
You see what I'm saying.
So media given the media ispartisan is of course open to
manipulation of sorts.
But I don't even think it'smanipulation.
I think it's playing to youraudience.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
Of course, keywords, certain keywords, tonality, all
that's put into the scene.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
A hundred percent.
Speaker 3 (31:16):
Got you and celebrities.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
Can you give me an example of how you would
engineer the media or your mediacampaign to go viral and shape
public perception?
Speaker 2 (31:35):
Okay, well, here's an example.
So basically, first of all, youwant to use catching narratives
, you want to tap into thezeitgeist, right?
So what people are thinking?
So number one is it has to beof sufficient size to get
coverage based on the coverageyou're looking for.
So if you are looking for localmedia visibility, a crowd of 25
(32:00):
people might actually get youon the local news.
If you're looking for nationalvisibility, you probably need at
least hundreds, if not more, toget on the national news, right
?
So part of it it's going todepend on what media that you're
looking for.
And then you tap into okay,well, what do these media folks
(32:22):
tend to cover, and is it in linewith their existing narratives?
And if it is, then they'regoing to want to cover
demonstrations that feed intotheir narrative.
But here's one other thing thatI do Sometimes you actually can
use your opponents to get youthe coverage right, because,
let's just say, you're doing aliberal protest, a left-wing
(32:45):
protest, you might want to dosomething catchy enough that you
get Fox news to try to come atyou right like.
So you might try to antagonizeyour opponents, because by
antagonizing your opponentsyou're making a story you get
coverage, yep, so so they dothat that all the time.
So, in a way, sometimes I hateto say this, but you might want
(33:08):
to you want to leave bait.
So if you say something superwoke and super kind of
politically correct, fox Newsmight be like ah, I see a target
.
Because, as you know, the mediaecosystem is actually.
They both seem at odds witheach other Fox News, msnbc,
(33:29):
they're at odds, but they'reactually friends.
They actually have the samegoal, which is to get money from
their viewers right, to keeptheir viewers in the loop, to
get clicks, to get ads, etcetera, et cetera, right.
So Fox News and MSNBC, it'skind of like WWE, right, like
these fighters are fighting eachother, but they're both making
(33:50):
money.
You know what I mean?
They're both, they're bothtrying to spur this on because
it it helps them both, so thepolitics helps them both.
Same with republicans anddemocrats, like, as I always say
, like I use al sharpton.
Al sharpton's biggest enemy isnot the trumpets, it's j's,
jesse Jackson or the otherpeople who might want to compete
(34:14):
for his audience.
Right, because he wants to bethe voice of black America.
So Trump isn't a threat to him,trump isn't the voice of black
America.
But if someone else comes alonglike Charlemagne, the God or
what's his name, the one rapper,myson, pardon me.
Speaker 3 (34:36):
Myson.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
Oh, killer Mike.
I was thinking of Killer Mike,killer Mike, but Myson.
Speaker 1 (34:44):
Myson is a part of that too right.
He doesn't even know who Mysonis.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
I don't even know who that is, because I'm not in the
community, you know.
You know what he said.
I'm not in the community, youknow.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
You know what he said .
He's not in the community, butI see he studies though, hearing
how they do the media.
You know how they getinterested.
I've got to understand everycommunity, by the way.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
Part of being in my business guys is I've got to
understand every community.
I want to understand Blackcommunity, latino community.
I want to understand Blackcommunity, latino community.
I want to understand ruralwhite community, country,
western community.
I want to play to the communitythat we are trying to focus on.
(35:24):
So if it's a rural issue, I'vegot to understand what those
people care about.
One of the big problems thatthe Democrats have is they don't
really understand any communitybesides the educated white
liberal community that they aremostly from.
Speaker 3 (35:36):
Wow, wow, let it go, hold on hold on hold on.
Speaker 1 (35:43):
Where's that?
Speaker 2 (35:44):
oh my god it's true, it's true, and even when, when
there's because here's.
The other thing is that the youknow they can have someone on
MSNBC who's like oh, I'm theLatino commentator, I'm the
black commentator, but thosepeople don't speak for that
community Right.
Those people are speaking again, like I said, to white liberals
(36:06):
.
So the thing is that theDemocratic Party is only only
knows how to talk to educatedwhite liberals.
They do it very well.
They own 90 percent of thatvote, but 95 percent, maybe 100
percent of that vote, but thatis 20 percent of the country.
What about the other 80 percent?
Speaker 3 (36:25):
Got you, adam.
So you know I'm gonna throw awrench right now.
Tell me if you agree with this.
A wrench right now, tell me ifyou agree with this.
Like, how would your companyspin us, like, formulate a story
about this podcast right hereabout?
From your experience with mikeand ron, how would you guys
formulate a story?
Speaker 2 (36:41):
well if I were promoting it.
I would like stage kind ofevent where you guys, you know
you guys take on some entrenchedinterest.
So, for example, you guys like.
One thing that I think would belike a interesting one is if
you like you guys, took on well,here's an idea.
That that I think is big, andparticularly not to say that you
(37:04):
only represent the blackcommunity, but that one thing,
one major cause that I have, isthe poison in our fast food.
Mcdonald's has murderedmillions of black people, black
Americans disproportionately.
I mean white Americans too.
But McDonald's, through the,they advertise specifically in
black neighborhoods.
(37:24):
They advertise their mostnastiest products with the most
sugar, sugar, the most, um,trans fat.
Right, and should it be then asurprise that the black life
expectancy is 20 to 30 yearsshorter than the white life
expectancy?
Right, that's effed up.
I'm not allowed to swear onhere.
I mean that's effed up.
(37:45):
I mean that that is like, like.
I would love to see two peoplelike you guys use your platform
to say coca-cola has the bloodof amer black americans on its
hands and do like I've alwayswanted to put coca-cola on trial
and say what you've done, youknow, with robes and everything,
um, what you have done to blackcommunities, to then come back
(38:12):
and then say, oh well, we havetwo black board members on our
board, so somehow that absolvesus of guilt.
We make charitable donations,so that somehow absolves us of
guilt.
You see what I'm saying?
Like, I think you guys shouldgo after the big entrenched
interests that say that theycare about the black community
(38:33):
in new york and especially, butthen they don't.
You know, they really don't.
Um, I don't think they even hateblack america.
They see black america'slemmings for their products,
right?
Um, that's why black muslimswon't eat that stuff.
You know what I mean.
Because they know, like, one ofmy business partners is a black
muslim and she says, uh, or shegrew up in.
(38:57):
She says she, she will not, um,she, she doesn't want to, um,
engage in that stuff.
Speaker 1 (39:03):
You know, because they know that those uh fast
food was there to essentiallypoison black america now I want,
I want to ask this question Lawand order, strategically Sure
Correct lawbreakers, notbystanders.
Don't fall for the trap.
Yes, I agree.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
I agree, I'm the biggest advocate for personal
liberties and for the right ofFirst Amendment expression, but
I also believe in law and orderand those things actually must
go together.
You can't have freedom withoutlaw and you can't have law
without freedom, because thepeople will not accept an unjust
(39:45):
society, but people.
You cannot protest justice froma perspective of law, injustice
from a perspective of law,injustice from a perspective of
law breaking.
So the idea is that we inAmerica are judged as
individuals.
So if I am holding a sign andsomeone throws a brick, I am not
accountable because someonethrows a brick.
(40:06):
I held my sign and, by the way,I take that ideologically
neutral, so I've stood up,whether it's BLM protesters or
January 6th protesters.
If you commit an act ofviolence, you should be punished
.
If you commit an act ofvandalism you should be punished
, but if you were there whenthat was done, that is not on
(40:29):
you unless you directed it.
When that was done, that is noton you unless you directed it.
So I really what I reallyoppose is the fact that
left-wing prosecutors willprosecute right-wing protesters
and right-wing prosecutors willprosecute left-wing protesters
disproportionately, and what Ithink we need is a uniform set
(40:49):
of regulations that says this iswhat protests, this is what is
allowed, this is what's notallowed.
If you do, if you vandalize thebuilding, your punishment is a
week in jail.
If you um punch a cop, yourpunishment is 10 years in jail.
I mean, if you whatever,whatever the penalty is.
Maybe maybe that's not what thepenalties are, but I'm just
(41:09):
saying that it should be common.
It doesn't matter.
See, my problem is people paytoo much attention to oh, these
are right-wing insurrectionistsor left-wing agitators.
No, you should be judged forwhat you did, right, not for
what you thought.
Because in America it's legalto be a neo-Nazi right.
(41:31):
It's legal to be a neo-naziright.
It's legal to be a neo-nazi.
You're allowed to do that,right.
You're not allowed to vandalizea building with a swastika
right.
But a vandalism.
Vandalizing a building with aswastika should have the same
penalty as vandalizing abuilding with a BLM slogan right
(41:51):
?
Because ultimately, both arevandalism and should be judged
for the content of their actions, not the content of their ideas
.
Speaker 1 (42:04):
All right, I have a question here Do you support
reparations for the descendantsof chattel slavery in the United
States and would you support ananti-Black crime bill?
Slash 2A in the wake of Peytonuh Gendron, gendron, gendron,
(42:27):
gendron, gendron.
Speaker 2 (42:29):
I don't.
I don't support reparations.
I'll tell you why.
It's because there are a lot ofgroups that have been oppressed
in the United States and thereality is that I.
What I don't want to start is,you know, every group can come
in with I mean, and I, I, Inumber one, like I should say
that child slavery was auniquely evil crime.
It was an evil crime, but thechallenges that latino americans
(42:56):
have been oppressed, gayamericans have been oppressed.
I mean in the 80s, any gayamerican, many of whom are alive
today.
People lost friends to aids,right?
Speaker 1 (43:07):
Yeah, but that's completely different, Completely
different.
I hear where you're going withthis.
I hear where you're going withit.
It was a completely differentsituation, not only just the
slavery, but then what happenedafter that, and so on and so
forth.
The crack era, the crack eraand all.
Speaker 3 (43:29):
Crime bills.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
I don't know.
I hear you and I don't have aproblem with someone saying my
father attempted to purchase ahome and was denied a loan
because he was black.
I think there's a legitimategrievance against the bank.
So I do believe banks should beable to be.
(43:51):
I think the problem is you needwhat's called standing in order
to sue.
So I think it's the sameprinciple to receive reparations
, because the thing is, Iunderstand that slavery was a
uniquely evil crime, but therewere uniquely horrible crimes,
you know, against the NativeAmericans, against Latinos,
against Asian Americans.
I mean there was an instance inCalifornia, I believe, where a
(44:16):
bunch of Asian Americans were,like purposefully drowned to
death.
Speaker 3 (44:19):
Right, I mean there were and camps and all that.
Trust me, I hear where you'recoming from.
Speaker 1 (44:25):
I hear you.
Speaker 3 (44:26):
We sympathize with every group.
I hear where you're coming from, I hear you and we sympathize
with every group.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
I hear where you're coming from.
Speaker 3 (44:29):
Hold on, ron, I sympathize with every group you
know what I'm saying Every groupfacing kind of atrocity.
I'm not taking away from nobody, right, but for people of color
, local Black people, who's 300plus years, right, that's
recorded where you wereconsidered by law three fifths
of a human being, where you weredegraded, whatever, devalued,
(44:52):
and then you know, 1865 cameabout where they say you're
so-called free and they werestill persecuted for the color
of their skin.
And you know, people had thatmentality to hate them,
prejudice for over their skincolor.
And they still today, somepeople still carry these, these,
these notions in their mindthat they have like this, this
dislike for a person, for thecolor of their skin, because
it's a social issue.
Speaker 2 (45:13):
So again, I mean, I don't disagree with any of that
but, I think the challenge ishow do you say we're?
what I don't want to do is pickfavorites, because the reality
is america has, I mean, otherthan I think I was joking to
someone because someone wasasking me about this recently I
was like, other than a few Eastcoast wasps, everyone is the
(45:36):
descendant of someone who's beenpretty badly oppressed in some
way in this country, right, um,and some of those are more
recent and some of those arefurther away.
My challenge is, I think, thatany form of reparations will
only exacerbate the divisions inthis country, because everyone
(45:56):
has a case why their group wasoppressed.
Don't disagree that slavery wasa uniquely horrible crime.
The Indian genocide was auniquely horrible crime.
The AIDS kind of exterminationof gay people and the failure to
respond was a uniquely horriblecrime.
The fact that women were deniedrights for centuries is a
(46:21):
uniquely horrible crime is auniquely horrible crime.
You know, the fact that Asianswere um interned, uh in the um
second world war was a uniquelyhorrible crime.
So the thing is, I don't want.
What I don't want to play isthe oppression Olympics.
You know what I mean.
I don't.
Speaker 1 (46:38):
I don't want to play the oppression Olympics because
the old, because what do you,what do you say about other
people who were compensated fortheir oppression?
Speaker 2 (46:47):
Well, I don't think people were I mean my only, the
only example that I understandwere compensated was the
Japanese Americans in World WarTwo were compensated, honestly,
with cents on the dollar forproperty that was stolen from
them, but for them they wereactually common, it had to be
them, right.
So so you took my house, youwere compensated, right, but the
(47:11):
fact that so you had to have alot of standing to do that,
right.
So?
So for the most part we haven'tcompensated groups in the
United States.
So that's kind of my point.
So if every other group wascompensated and black America
wasn't, then it would bedifferent.
But I I don't really think theunited states has.
So I think my concern is, likeall this does is, again it
(47:35):
starts in oppression olympicsand again I think black america
would would do well in theoppression olympics.
I mean, a black america hasbeen pretty well, pretty
oppressed in American history.
I'm not trying to say BlackAmerica probably hasn't been one
of the most oppressed groups ofall the groups that I listed.
I'm just saying that I don'tnecessarily think that's where
(47:59):
we need to go.
What I think we need to do isstop the current discrimination
against Black Americans, becauseI think in the field of
economic inclusion, in terms ofsmall businesses, black
Americans and Blackentrepreneurs are not taken
seriously and they are actuallybeing discriminated against in
many cases and I think that's aproblem.
(48:21):
I think they're trying to.
I think Black families arebeing discriminated against
through the welfare system.
I think Black communities arebeing discriminated against
through a systematic defundingof the police, but also failure
to invest in community policing.
(48:41):
So I don't disagree that BlackAmerica is due an investment,
but it's not reparations, it'san investment.
Speaker 3 (48:53):
I agree with the investment Okay.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
We'll let him go with that you don't have to agree,
by the way, I honestly— no, no,no, it's not that I get where
you're coming from.
Speaker 1 (49:05):
No, no, no, no.
It's not that I get what you'recoming from, I get where you're
coming from.
Now I want to talk about giveme some more about your company
before we go.
So let's say like, for anexample, like let's say, mike
and I we started an organization, right yeah, we started a
(49:26):
not-for-profit.
Speaker 2 (49:26):
Like, how would you guys service our not-for-profit?
Like, how would you guysservice our not-for-profit?
Well, uh, for the non-profit, Imean, if it was an ad, if it
was a 501c3?
We don't generally work with501c3 like charities, unless the
goal is to kind of promote them, um, but that's rare.
Well, we generally work withnon-profit advocacy groups.
So tell me a cause that youguys are passionate about and
I'll tell you how I wouldprosecute it.
Speaker 3 (49:47):
It's for community upliftment, political education,
vocational training for theyouth, anti-gang violence, sure.
Speaker 2 (49:58):
Yeah, I mean, this is kind of a little bit of a
riskier strategy.
But have protests with securityat all the major gang
intersections, the place wherethey do the drugs right, that
they do the drug dealing and allof whatever their illicit
activity, and I would havepeople outside saying there's a
(50:20):
better way, you don't need to dothis, so we'll really kill them
with kindness, so to speak.
So to basically say there's abetter way, invest in yourself
and then have statistics likeyour average gang member is dead
in five years.
Right, your average gang memberis either dead or in prison in
(50:42):
two years, three years, right,you know, your average gang
member has a life expectancy of28,.
Right, you know.
So just illuminate thesestatistics about gang members,
but in a in a way that workswith how people are, but shine a
light on them, right, and andthen have film crews out there
(51:03):
where, if they're reacting andain't really to them, show that
on camera, expose it and havepeople in the community turn out
and say, hey, this is wrong andwhat you know, and and use that
as a vehicle to stand up,because the problem is it's this
world war of like gangs versusthe police, and then a lot of
(51:25):
people are like well, which isworse?
The gangs are thugs, but thepolice are thugs too.
But actually having peopleshine a light and say, get this
the heck out of ourneighborhoods, it doesn't serve
our kids or our communities.
We want to own shit, and theonly way we're going to own shit
is if we get the gangs off thestreets.
Speaker 3 (51:46):
I go back.
When invested in the community,I go.
I hear what you're saying withthat.
Speaker 2 (51:51):
You don't shine a light on that because the other
thing, mikey, is that is theother thing I would probably do
is protest the banks.
I will protest all the bigbanks, because all the big banks
are telling us Stop.
Speaker 1 (52:05):
Hold on.
Why should we protest the banks?
Speaker 2 (52:09):
They're not investing in the community.
They should be.
They should be investingbillions.
They do all these pressconferences where, like Jamie
Diamond, or all these, like bigI met him.
Are out there saying, oh well,we're investing in the black
community, but when I go inpredominantly black
neighborhoods I generally don'tsee the results of those
(52:29):
investments right.
I think I want you should bedemanding, not from the
government and the taxpayers,but from the biggest banks to
say invest in us, right, Investin our community.
Because ultimately, if you giveum the same loans that you give
(52:50):
to white entrepreneurs in whiteneighborhoods, to black
entrepreneurs in blackneighborhoods, you're going to
make a lot of progress.
And if you have more owners Iwould put these things on notice
is we demand that you makethese investments in our
neighborhood?
And part of that is to me.
I don't believe that.
I don't want to do reparationsas a country, but I do believe
(53:13):
that the banks the same banksthat denied loans to Black
people for years should investin those Black communities.
So I would put the banks onnotice.
They better invest, they betterbuild and create jobs.
Speaker 1 (53:28):
I would protest the construction companies saying if
you're going to build in ourneighborhood, you better employ
people in our neighborhood thatmakes sense so I just said
something about protestingbefore, before you guys even
reached out, and I was sayingyou know, uh, someone, sheik El
said, sheik El said somethingabout protests, something about
(53:49):
protesting doesn't work orsomething to that, that that
alluding to that, and then Isaid it's not about the protest
is about what you're protestingabout and who you're protesting
against.
Speaker 3 (54:02):
It's the strategy, because you know, no, no, no
firm wants bad public.
They don't want bad PR, theydon't want a reputation on the
news Like, oh my God, you got mein the news.
Now You're hurting theintegrity of the business and
such and such.
So I get what he's saying.
Protest the banks to put moreinvestments in the neighborhood.
Claim that you care.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
So one big, big mistake, people do is they
protest their antagonist ratherthan their friends, but they're
their shitty friend, you know,because if you protest Trump,
(54:39):
it's not going to work rightBecause Trump isn't.
I mean, I guess he says hecares about the black community,
but he doesn't really care thatmuch.
I mean, I guess he says hecares about the Black community,
but he doesn't really care thatmuch.
But if you can protest thepeople who say that they care
but who don't- I got you, that'smy opinion I got you.
Speaker 3 (55:01):
We gotta have you come back on there.
Speaker 1 (55:02):
We gotta we would love to have you back, because
we have some things to talkabout yeah, and I, I, I hate the
, the meat, the media angle whenhe speaks.
Speaker 3 (55:13):
I'm like oh, I see he's good he's good, he's good,
he's good, he's good, he's good,I got you, I got you, man, you
know what?
Speaker 1 (55:19):
and also man uh shouts out to him man,
congratulations on on a solidbusiness, you know you started
off when you were really, reallyyoung, and now you're 34.
Thriving business man.
More power to you man, Muchrespect to you man.
Speaker 2 (55:34):
And I appreciate you guys for what you guys are doing
.
And when next time in New YorkI'll come in, We'll do it in
person.
Speaker 1 (55:42):
Yes, sir, yeah we're.
We're going to start in personthis month.
Speaker 2 (55:46):
Yes, sir, yeah, we're going to start in person this
month.
Oh that's awesome.
That's awesome.
I think it's great what you'redoing, and I think it's
important that people moreindependent speak up, because
this is an age dominated by theextremes that Ocasio-Cortez, the
Trumps, who are really just twosides of the same coin.
And I want I think a vastmajority of people just want
(56:07):
common sense.
They want, they want, they,they support entrepreneurship,
they want safe streets, theysupport justice for people of
all races and religions andethnicities.
They want, you know, they wanta fair playing field.
You know and, and, and I thinkyou guys generally share that
value.
I know we don't a hundredpercent agree on the reparation
(56:28):
thing, but I think you guysgenerally share that value.
I know we don't 100% agree onthe reparation thing, but I
think generally we share a lotof the same values.
Speaker 1 (56:32):
And I really like that.
Yes, sir, yes, sir.
On that note, thank you forcoming out this evening.
I really appreciate you.
Come back again, especially inperson.
That'll be great and we willstay in contact.
You know, tell everybody wherethey can find you on X.
I think X is one of the places.
Speaker 2 (56:52):
I'm on X slash Twitter at CEO Adam Swart, so
CEO, and then my name AdamS-W-A-R-T.
You can check us out onlinecrowdsondemandcom.
That's crowdsondemandcom.
That's crowdsondemandcom.
So yeah, if you have a cause ora company that needs to be
promoted and needs a little legup, to just kind of a catalyst
(57:15):
to get people to notice and payattention, let us know.
We always are interested.
So I so appreciate your guys'time and I look forward to
continuing the conversation.
Speaker 3 (57:28):
Definitely, most definitely, we have to go
forward.
Speaker 1 (57:32):
Have a good evening and we're out of here, peace.
What's going on.
Everybody is Ron Brown, lmt,the people's fitness
professional, alongside myco-host, mikey Fever, and this
is a New Yorkers perspective.
We have Adam Swart on today,founder and and CEO of Crowds on
Demand.
Nice to meet you.
How are you feeling thisevening?
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Excellent, as always.
Great to be with you both andto chat a little bit about the
business and anything else youguys want to talk about.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Great, great.
Okay, so you know.
First I want to go into yourhistory a little bit.
Um, where are you from?
Speaker 2 (00:49):
So I'm from California, um from the Bay.
Area Um what's called a Bayarea for the most part, but
lived, uh, for a few years inIreland growing up, so did that.
Then went to school in LosAngeles at UCLA, and that's kind
(01:11):
of where I started my business.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Gotcha, gotcha.
Okay, so you kind of like gaveus a snippet.
So how did you grow up?
What was your childhood like?
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Oh, pretty good.
I, I mean, I think I was alwaysprobably the kid who talked out
of turn a little bit in school.
I was very opinionated.
I always wanted to figure outwho was in charge and who could
actually get me what I waslooking for.
So it's like, if you're a kid,I was always the annoying kid
who probably negotiated thegrades.
Um, you know, I'll try to charmthe teacher a little bit.
(01:45):
Um, you know, I uh, you know,as a kid I think I was always
very interested in politics, uh,very interested in, like, how
the world works, um, kind oftangentially, was always a train
lover.
Love, always loved trains.
That was a big interest of mine.
So yeah, I think I was a nicekid for the most part.
(02:08):
I mean, most kids are a littlebrat.
So I think I probably was alittle bit of a brat too, but
yeah, a little bit of a mix.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Gotcha.
So were you born like in thelate 90s.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Oh well, thank you, I appreciate that.
Early 90s, OK, so 91.
So I'm 34 now, so I've been atthis business for 13 years now.
So since college I've beenrunning my business Nice.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Nice, nice.
Ok, all right, so let's, let'sgo right into it.
So what is your businessexactly?
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Okay, so crowds on demand is the largest protest
company in the world.
So what we do, it's a now it's,it's easier to be a largest
protest company than to be thelargest computer software
company, for sure, um, becausethere aren't.
There's not really a lot ofcompetition, but what we do is
we allow people, allow people toput together advocacy campaigns
(03:07):
, protests, pr stunts, all kindsof things like that, and all
across the country and evenoccasionally, internationally.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
So like a flash mob on demand, something like that,
absolutely Flash mobs.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Kind of like what we call PR stuff.
So let's just say, you're acompany you really want to, you
know, evangelize your product,you know, in an unconventional
manner.
We do that right, so we'll helpyou promote your product, you
know, outside of conference oronline or kind of in the media
(03:46):
as well.
So what we do is our specialty,is using the power of protest
and the power of people, youknow, to put together these kind
of events, these displays thatget a ton of attention and that
raise awareness, whether it'syour product, your company or
your cause.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Gotcha Okay.
So would you say that a lot ofthese protests going on, they
are possibly using a companylike yours?
Speaker 2 (04:15):
They may not use a company, but they are generally.
What I would say is I think theroot of your question is are
people who are protesting beingcompensated?
And the answer is generally yes, and there's a lot of ways to
receive compensation, right, sothere's cash compensation.
Like our company, what we do iswe pay people to attend, so
(04:38):
that's how we guaranteeattendance.
That's very valuable for ourcustomers, because, when we
organize a protest, we paypeople to attend and therefore
they attend, and that's a greatservice to our customers, right,
but what our what we also do,though, is what.
What you're talking about inregards to the, the protest that
(05:03):
you see?
Yeah, a lot of.
There's a lot of ways to getcompensation.
So, for example, flexing onInstagram, in my opinion, is
compensation.
So a lot of the people, forexample I don't know whether you
guys agree with this, but Ithink a lot of the like the read
, the housewives who went andattended the BLM rallies in 2020
, we're not passionate aboutblack Lives Matter.
(05:25):
They were there because theywanted to seem like they were
part of the cause, that theyunderstood the movement and
posts on Instagram and people tobe like wow you're great.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
That's very common.
You got people who are theirphoto opportunists.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Mike doesn't like the photo ops.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
I don't like photo opportunists.
They go there, they dilute thecause.
They're not as compassionate,their attention is not pure
Correct.
You know like you know peoplelike George Soros and them.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Sharpton right, who is who's kind of a major grifter
and uh, you know, in the blackcommunity they actually kind of
know he's a fraud, but actuallyhis audience is more like white
liberals, because white liberalsdon't know he's a fraud.
So so the challenge is theyactually believe he speaks for
black America.
So when he speaks he's speakingto them.
He's not actually speaking tothe black community.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
So he has a point.
Ron, give him applause.
He has a point.
Yeah, I don't Listen whetheryou're Black or white.
I don't deal with ambulancechasers.
I don't deal with ambulancechasers.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Here's my thing on Al Sharpton, though this is my
view on Al Sharpton.
Now is he an ambulance chaserand things like that?
Okay, I get the point.
However, like doing this work,mike, we've done this work.
This work is not easy, I know.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
It's not.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
It's not easy, like the activism work.
It's not easy, no, it's notRight, and so many things are
coming at you from differentangles, in different ways.
I think that al sharpton hastried the best he can and then,
once he's he figured out likethere's money behind it.
I think that's where he started.
(07:18):
It started to get a littlediluted, a little bit correct,
correct.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
I mean, look, we're all human.
I don't think he's an evilperson or anyone else isn't.
You know, I I think moralityjudgments are separate from, hey
, this guy's kind of a grifter.
I mean, there are plenty ofgrifters around, I mean.
But I want to get back to yourquestion.
But I kind of think that alsharpe in the real housewives
example, it kind of illustratesthere's different forms of
(07:42):
compensation.
So so, for example, laborunions also basically compensate
people to attend protests.
Right, if you're in a union,you're expected to attend
certain demonstrations, certainevents.
Right, and if you attend, youwill find that you get better
shifts, better treatment.
If you don't attend, you willfind that you are getting worse
(08:06):
shifts and worse treatment,right.
So, even though that, so that'sa compensated protester, right.
So I mean I would say I alwaysuse this line, but basically,
like, think about Woodstock, youknow the Vietnam War protests,
all that.
I mean a lot of those guys werethere to smoke pot and get laid
right.
So in a sense of, so I thinkthe the challenge we're talking
(08:27):
about compensating protesters isthat there's so many different
forms of compensation that it'svery difficult to say okay, well
, well, cash compensation is, isbad, but other forms of
compensation aren't.
I mean, the other thing is likeI actually think it's right for
(08:48):
people to get paid to protestbecause, frankly, um, talk show
hosts are paid, right, like youthink about.
Look like tug of carlson, right.
Rachel maddow, right, these guysare paid eight figures, right,
they're paid tens of millions ofdollars.
So those guys are paid tens ofmillions of dollars to express
(09:10):
their opinions, right, andpeople generally say, okay, well
, their opinions are sincere,okay, well.
So if they're getting paid tensof millions of dollars and are
generally assumed to be sincere,you're saying a protester
getting paid in the hundreds ofdollars, they're not sincere.
How do you square those facts?
Speaker 3 (09:32):
I got you Basically.
To sum it up, and I don't wantto sound offensive to the common
folk the game is to be sold,not told.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Well, sure Say that again.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
The game is to be sold, not told.
Sure, sure say, say that againthe game is to be sold, not told
yeah, sure, sure, I respectthat, I respect that.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Yeah, I mean, well, I think, I mean I don't, I'm, but
, by the way, I don't thinkyou're being sold when you're
expecting you're getting paid toexpress your opinion, because I
actually it's.
I think it's important becauseif you're coming out there,
you're paid to express youropinion, not to have an opinion,
so, sold, I think the word.
(10:10):
When you say sold, the kind ofimplication is I sold out, right
, I'm being paid and thereforeI'm changing my opinion.
I would say what we do atCrowds on Demand is we are
essentially our people are paidto express their sincere
opinions.
So you see, the distinction islike we're not trying to get
(10:33):
people to sell out.
Nor again would people sell outfor what we compensate them,
what we compensate people enoughto show up for something they
already believe in.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
Got you, ok, all right.
People enough to show up forsomething they already believe
in.
Got you, okay, all right.
How do you see that, mike?
Because it's it's.
We don't come from that.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
We don't, we don't come from that close like yeah,
because, and what I reallylisten, everybody you know has
their angle, has their agendaand I get what you're coming
from, because what he's doing isum, you know it's a crowds in
the man, because during thepresidential um campaigns they
were doing the same thing bustloads of people to come in, you
know you.
You know you like Trump, youlike Kamala?
(11:13):
All right, here's a t-shirtabsolutely here's a hot dog, a
drink.
You know I'm saying $40 and callit a day, so I get what I get.
I get what he's coming from.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
It's a business well, it's just a business.
And, by the way, like, oh yeah,a lot of those people at those
rallies are actually republicanor democrat staffers, right?
So if you, let's just imaginethat that's a good point new
york.
Let's just say you work for anew york city um council members
, right, your job is not torallies.
(11:44):
Your job is to work on billsthat help the people of New York
, right, but essentially, one,one kind of tacit part of your
job is to actually attendrallies.
You see what I'm saying?
So, because if you're aDemocrat council member, you're
expecting your staff members toessentially go out and like to
(12:08):
the rallies, right, and if they,even though that's not part of
their job, so a lot of thepeople who are going to these
things actually don't reallysupport like.
I mean, it's not that theydon't support it because they're
Democrats, but they're, they'rebeing incentivized to go.
So but okay, let me.
Let's take a step back for asecond about, like what paid
(12:29):
protesting is right.
Well, what all kind of protestis is I think people make a
mistake when they think that thegoal of a protest is to show
public support.
And oh, okay, there's 200people who demonstrated on one
side of the issue and 50 peopleon the other.
Well, let's just assume youknow, four out of five people
(12:53):
support this issue.
You see what I'm saying?
I got what you're saying.
That's an inaccurate way to lookat it.
The way to look at it is what aprotest does is it gets
people's attention.
It gets the media's attention,it gets whoever you're
protesting his attention.
It forces you to say let's lookat this issue, right.
Ultimately, you can spend asmuch money and have as many
(13:16):
protesters as possible, but ifthe issue doesn't resonate, you
will not get results, so like.
So, if you think about everymovement, from gay rights, civil
rights, maga, tea party, blmit's all backed by a ton of
money, right, but that doesn'tdelegitimize the causes, right?
(13:38):
All that means is that thereare a lot of wealthy people who
want to back the cause and wantto make sure that it gets the
visibility that to grow, because, like, for example, money does
not guarantee visibility.
I mean, look at, look at jebbush.
Jeb bush ran for president in2016.
I'm sure they spent about 150to 200 million dollars on his
(14:01):
campaign for him to get like twopercent.
Right, he got laughed off stage, right, but what his money did
was it got him noticed.
Everyone, everyone knew who JebBush was.
They all just decided theydidn't want to vote for Right?
That's the effect that moneyhas.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
So I have a question for you, right so?
Are you funding the free Diddycampaign outside of courthouse?
Is that your company?
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Well, I mean look, I'll put it.
I mean look.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
I'll put it this way Mike, good question.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
If I started commenting on every like
potential thing, then I wouldget myself in this situation
where it's like, oh well, if youdon't comment, then we assume
you are behind it, right.
So I don't like to be like, oh,we are or we aren't behind it.
(14:58):
The only thing that we kind ofwhere we are clear that we don't
do, is illegal activity, right?
So anything that's kind of likebreaking the law, blocking a
street without a permit, youknow, violence, vandalism,
whatever we don't associate withthat.
You know we don't mess withthat.
You know that is not how we runour business with that.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
We don't mess with that.
That is not how we run ourbusiness.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
All right, so I may have to hire you, man, make
oxtails cheap again.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
It's all messing with you, man.
Thank you, adam, you broke itdown for us.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Yeah, he's the comedian of the two.
So okay, protests aren'ttalking points, protests aren't
grassroots.
I think you covered that I havea point on Diddy right.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Like Diddy still deserves representation right,
he still deserves a lawyer.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
Due process and everything.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
yes, Now, if people are protesting.
I don't think people areprotesting violently, but if
people are, I condemn it.
But people have a right toprotest in favor of P Didion's
claim he didn't do anythingwrong.
I mean, I think that's you know, people can make that decision
for themselves, but ultimatelythat's for a jury to decide.
I don't find that in many casesthat protests have an impact on
(16:11):
court trials.
I think people they do a prettygood job of insulating the jury
from public pressure, but on anextreme level they might.
But I think P Diddy deserves hisday in court and he deserves to
have people who support him ifthey do.
So.
You know, I don't condemnpeople for going out and saying,
hey, let's look at.
(16:31):
And also I also don't condemnpeople, in the case of P Did you
, for saying, hey, let's lookcritically at the evidence, like
, because people just sort ofthere's a lot of the media can
always make something look badand say, ok, he's this pervert,
he's done all this bad stuff,but I think it's important to
look at.
Well, he may be questionable,but what has he done that's
(16:55):
illegal and that has to beproven in a court of law and
that should be litigated.
I'm not, I'm not taking PDiddy's side.
I'm just saying like I don'tsupport the idea of like that he
doesn't deserve people outthere to support.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
I understand I was just messing with you with that,
but I get what you're comingfrom.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
I get what you're saying we have a question.
What about crisis actors?
Speaker 2 (17:17):
Okay, so let me define it.
I don't know whether you guysknow what this term is.
I mean, I don't really like theterm because I think it's kind
of a little bit of fake news.
It's the idea that a lot ofworld events essentially are
staged.
So it's basically like, on anextreme level, like a mass
shooting is actually staged,like the shooting never happened
(17:38):
.
Um, the people who aresupposedly victims are actually
actors.
I mean, I think the challengeis, if that were true, you would
have a ton of people out therebeing like yeah, I was a crisis
actor, I was hired toimpersonate this person and have
direct evidence that to thateffect.
(17:58):
Um, there really hasn't beenany.
So, honestly, I I don'tnecessarily buy this like crisis
actor idea.
I mean, I think there's adifference between a crisis
actor and a false flag.
So a false flag is kind of likeokay, we're liberals, we're
going to have protesters, kindof like, look like they're
conservatives and then saystupid things or vice versa,
(18:20):
like, yeah, that happens all thetime, but when we're really
talking about crisis actors, Imean that that would be like a
very, very, um illegal activity.
So I think if you were to havethis happening, you would have a
lot more people talking aboutit, so I don't buy it.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Yeah, that came from Alex Jones, that whole Alex
Jones.
I know him, I know him.
Oh, you do.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Oh, that's what's up.
I know the guy, and I knowbecause he has said things that
are inaccurate about what we doat Crowds on Demand.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
So, oh, wow, so he, he knows, he knows, you guys.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Oh yeah, oh yes, oh yes, we know him and he knows us
, you know.
Look, I think they I've evenextended an invite and said I'm
happy to clear the air with himbecause I'm open, because I
think he's said things that arefalse and I think he's just I
don't know whether he'smisinformed or purposefully
spreading things that are false,but but yeah, he definitely has
(19:19):
said things that are provablyfalse.
But I'll give him the benefitof good intentions, but I'd love
to actually clarify some ofwhat he said, because some of
this stuff isn't really true.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Yeah, gotcha gotcha so foreign fingerprints.
What is that exactly?
Speaker 2 (19:38):
yeah, well, you're talking about foreign countries
and their ability to influencethings in the united states yeah
, that's totally a thing?
Yeah, it's totally a thing,yeah it's totally a.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Thing.
Can you give me an example?
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Well, I mean this has been happening, I mean there's.
Well, let me give you anon-protest example.
China has a series of policestations in the United States.
Did you know that, even in NewYork City, their goal of those
police stations is to police theChinese community and the
(20:11):
Chinese American community.
So they have and these areillegal, to be clear.
But where they have theiroperatives, they're monitoring
student groups and, for example,let's just say the.
But here's where it relates toprotests.
Let's just say the president ofChina is visiting, they will
let all the Chinese communityknow.
(20:34):
You're expected to come outthere to welcome him and to
cheer for him.
Or if there's some rally about,like Tibet or Taiwan or
whatever, they will tell thosepeople they have to be like at a
counter rally.
So what's kind of interestingabout that is and you might ask
well, any leverage that theChinese government has.
(20:56):
So let's just say you live inthe United States but your
mother and father live in China.
Well, that's leverage.
You know, if you don't do whatthey say, maybe your mother
loses her job or maybe they takeaway your you know aunt's house
somewhere.
You know what I mean.
They, they're, they've proven awillingness to do that, right.
So that's kind of one example,um, but but even like in a and
(21:21):
and this has been very welldocumented that this is
occurring, um, and it's kind ofconcerning, and a lot of the
those stations have beendismantled.
But the other thing that that'sworth noting is that, for
example, if a foreign countrywants to funnel money into
protest causes, they just needto.
All it is is layers, right?
Do you know what Russian dollsare?
(21:42):
Yeah, so you've got littledolls that fold into bigger
dolls.
Okay, so what all you need todo is like what you have is like
a little doll in the center,right, the people on the street
don't know that they're beingfunded by some shady entity, and
(22:15):
the shady entity doesn't have apaper trail to tie them back.
No, does it matter so much forlegal protests?
No, but it matters more forillegal protests, because if
you're funding something illegal, presumably you wouldn't want
to have your fingerprints on itso prime example who's funding
Antifa?
Oh well, I mean, a ton of peoplecould be.
I mean, look, I want to beclear that I don't want to name
(22:37):
names, and the reason is becauseI don't want to get sued for
defamation.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
Right.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
So I can't.
And part of it is you have tobe clear that because of this
Russian doll model, I suspectthat there are a lot of very
wealthy billionaires who arebehind funding some of this
stuff.
But it's indirect, so there'sno paper.
So if you kind of say, oh, thisbillionaire is funding Antifa,
(23:04):
they'll send you a cease anddesist and they'll say they're
not.
And maybe they're not, maybethey are, but if they are,
they're going to have enoughlevels of separation to
themselves.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
Got you.
That makes sense, Understood.
It's down the rabbit hole, bro.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
It's deep yeah man, it's kind of scary.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
But I don't even know your guys's politics.
It sounds like you guys arekind of pragmatic people.
Independence is that, is that anaccurate statement I'll say
yeah, pretty much and, by theway, I think that's great.
That's me too, by the waybecause as soon as you pledge
allegiance to a particular party, you are giving them power over
(23:47):
you, and the most powerfulthing you can do in any election
is say my vote is up for grabs.
You better do the things that Iwant you to do or you're not
going to get my vote Right.
Because as soon as you say,like, rural America votes
Republican, no matter what, well, what have the Republicans done
(24:08):
for rural America, right, nomatter what?
Well, what have the Republicansdone for rural America right?
Black America votes forDemocrats, you know, in many
respects, no matter what,although that's changing.
And what have Democrats donefor Black America, right.
So the most powerful thing youcan do is to say I'm a swing
voter.
You better actually do thethings that are going to matter
(24:29):
for me, or my family or mycommunity.
Because when you say thatyou're putting the parties on
notice, to say we better dosomething or we're going to lose
their votes to the other side.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Like you know, brother Ron and I, we had done
the community work we all forthe people.
We came to a point, through ourstudies and everything else,
and realized like this game ofracism and prejudice is
something that has beeninstilled into people to create
fear and division.
We're more into, like you know,people it sounds like a lullaby
but equity, equality andrespect for all you know.
(25:07):
So that's basically it with us.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
I agree with all of that, except I don't 100% agree
with equity, because equityimplies equal outcomes, which
isn't always possible in mostsocieties.
But I completely agree withequality and equal opportunity,
because I think you have to haveequal opportunity and respect
for different opinions, becauseone thing really lost is the
(25:32):
respect for different people'sopinions.
Oh, I see a question.
Do you want me to answer it?
Yes, sir, what safeguards youhave in place to prevent misuse
of crowdsourced labor, like fakereviews, manipulated data or
unethical task fulfillment?
Well, I think the safeguards isthat I vet every client myself,
(25:57):
so if it's something that wefeel like isn't contributing to
society, then we probably won'twork with them.
I mean, some of these things arekind of like a little bit vague
, like what is unethical taskfulfillment?
(26:17):
Don't even know what that is,um, but uh, fake reviews.
I mean I think there's a caseto be made.
This, like the whole reviewindustry is kind of bullshit,
like, um, like yelp, I don'treally care.
Like if people want to do fakereviews and like I just assume
that fake reviews are part ofthe system and like you know
that and that's just, that'sjust the game.
I mean so, um, yeah, you got totake what you read on Yelp or
(26:39):
TripAdvisor, google reviews, allwith like a grain of salt
because, especially likesomeone's controversial, you're
like.
And then they own a restaurant.
You're like I got foodpoisoning there.
Well, it's like.
Well, how, how do you know that?
You know what I mean.
(26:59):
So I don't know.
I I don't know about that, butwe certainly have safeguards
against people who we think arehave nefarious motives, and that
safeguard is my, our vettingprocess got you.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
So this the next talking point, is anti-trump
strategy.
The hands-off protests, okay,are meant to damage trump
through optics and policy, yes,not policy.
Can you break that down?
Speaker 2 (27:19):
well, I think, um, I think hands-off was sort of, if
you think of, like theanti-trump movements, uh, since
he took office for the secondtime, I think hands-off
effective, because anythinghands-off the the thing is trump
, um, I mean obviously, to hissuper fans, like he's he's god
and to his detractors he's he'sthe devil.
(27:40):
But I think, if you think aboutlike the people in the middle,
what brings them to like trumpis, yeah, they think he's kind
of like a crazy, but he's acrazy genius, you know.
Sure, he talks crazy, butultimately the results are there
.
So I have a good job, my 401kis doing well, you know, our
(28:00):
community is safe, right.
So there are a lot ofindependent voters that will
look at those kind of factorsand say, ok, well, I might not
like Trump's personality, butultimately, whatever he's doing,
there's a method to the madness.
But, conversely, like duringCOVID, or when you know like the
tariffs and you know priceincreases and you know stock
(28:21):
market crash, it's like, no,he's not a mad genius, he's just
a crazy person, right?
So I think hands off reallyspoke to those anxieties of like
, wow, is there a method to themadness or is he really doing
crazy things that just put us atrisk for no reason.
And so I think what I likeabout hands off is it appeals to
(28:42):
independent voters.
Whenever Crowds on man does aprotest, whether it's for a
company or a cause, I always tryto think who are we trying to
persuade, right?
And how are we working topersuade them?
And if the answer is we havenothing that would persuade
someone who doesn't know or ison the other side, then I'm like
(29:02):
, well, what are we doing?
You're just kind of wastingyour money and your time.
So I think it's effective, Ithink.
I think I think Democrats tendto be their own worst enemy,
like they have a good talkingpoint but then they kind of get
lost among all this other stuff.
And you know every identitygroup has to have its say and
(29:22):
you know the woke stuff is justnot popular.
Defund, the police isn'tpopular.
So I think they do best whenthey say, hey, we're the
grown-ups in the room and Ithought hands off really spoke
to them so control of narrative,I got you think thing.
Speaker 3 (29:39):
The control, the way you think, form your person.
It basically form a narrativefor you, form the story for you
and your opinions.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
I got you and and that, and.
That brings us right into thenext talking point media
manipulation.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, pretty much.
So is the media manipulated?
Yes, it is manipulated, I agree.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
Very much.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
So these campaigns are engineered to go viral and
shape public perception.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
A hundred percent.
A hundred percent, I mean to beclear.
Not all of our campaigns areengineered to go viral.
Some of them are designed toget local news coverage, or some
of them might be designed topersuade certain people at a
certain company.
So not all of what we do isgeared toward media, but
certainly some of what we do isand of course you play to the
(30:27):
media that you think will besupportive of you, because think
about this so right-wing mediais always going to try to make
right-wing causes bigger andlook smarter.
Left-wing media is always goingto try to make left-wing causes
look bigger and look smarter.
So if Fox News interviews aconservative protester and that
protester says something stupid,they probably won't air it,
(30:50):
whereas if they're covering aleft-wing protest and that
protester says something stupid,they probably won't air it,
whereas if they're covering aleft-wing protest and that
protester says something stupid,they almost certainly will air
it.
You see what I'm saying.
So media given the media ispartisan is of course open to
manipulation of sorts.
But I don't even think it'smanipulation.
I think it's playing to youraudience.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
Of course, keywords, certain keywords, tonality, all
that's put into the scene.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
A hundred percent.
Speaker 3 (31:16):
Got you and celebrities.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
Can you give me an example of how you would
engineer the media or your mediacampaign to go viral and shape
public perception?
Speaker 2 (31:35):
Okay, well, here's an example.
So basically, first of all, youwant to use catching narratives
, you want to tap into thezeitgeist, right?
So what people are thinking?
So number one is it has to beof sufficient size to get
coverage based on the coverageyou're looking for.
So if you are looking for localmedia visibility, a crowd of 25
(32:00):
people might actually get youon the local news.
If you're looking for nationalvisibility, you probably need at
least hundreds, if not more, toget on the national news, right
?
So part of it it's going todepend on what media that you're
looking for.
And then you tap into okay,well, what do these media folks
(32:22):
tend to cover, and is it in linewith their existing narratives?
And if it is, then they'regoing to want to cover
demonstrations that feed intotheir narrative.
But here's one other thing thatI do Sometimes you actually can
use your opponents to get youthe coverage right, because,
let's just say, you're doing aliberal protest, a left-wing
(32:45):
protest, you might want to dosomething catchy enough that you
get Fox news to try to come atyou right like.
So you might try to antagonizeyour opponents, because by
antagonizing your opponentsyou're making a story you get
coverage, yep, so so they dothat that all the time.
So, in a way, sometimes I hateto say this, but you might want
(33:08):
to you want to leave bait.
So if you say something superwoke and super kind of
politically correct, fox Newsmight be like ah, I see a target
.
Because, as you know, the mediaecosystem is actually.
They both seem at odds witheach other Fox News, msnbc,
(33:29):
they're at odds, but they'reactually friends.
They actually have the samegoal, which is to get money from
their viewers right, to keeptheir viewers in the loop, to
get clicks, to get ads, etcetera, et cetera, right.
So Fox News and MSNBC, it'skind of like WWE, right, like
these fighters are fighting eachother, but they're both making
(33:50):
money.
You know what I mean?
They're both, they're bothtrying to spur this on because
it it helps them both, so thepolitics helps them both.
Same with republicans anddemocrats, like, as I always say
, like I use al sharpton.
Al sharpton's biggest enemy isnot the trumpets, it's j's,
jesse Jackson or the otherpeople who might want to compete
(34:14):
for his audience.
Right, because he wants to bethe voice of black America.
So Trump isn't a threat to him,trump isn't the voice of black
America.
But if someone else comes alonglike Charlemagne, the God or
what's his name, the one rapper,myson, pardon me.
Speaker 3 (34:36):
Myson.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
Oh, killer Mike.
I was thinking of Killer Mike,killer Mike, but Myson.
Speaker 1 (34:44):
Myson is a part of that too right.
He doesn't even know who Mysonis.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
I don't even know who that is, because I'm not in the
community, you know.
You know what he said.
I'm not in the community, youknow.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
You know what he said .
He's not in the community, butI see he studies though, hearing
how they do the media.
You know how they getinterested.
I've got to understand everycommunity, by the way.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
Part of being in my business guys is I've got to
understand every community.
I want to understand Blackcommunity, latino community.
I want to understand Blackcommunity, latino community.
I want to understand ruralwhite community, country,
western community.
I want to play to the communitythat we are trying to focus on.
(35:24):
So if it's a rural issue, I'vegot to understand what those
people care about.
One of the big problems thatthe Democrats have is they don't
really understand any communitybesides the educated white
liberal community that they aremostly from.
Speaker 3 (35:36):
Wow, wow, let it go, hold on hold on hold on.
Speaker 1 (35:43):
Where's that?
Speaker 2 (35:44):
oh my god it's true, it's true, and even when, when
there's because here's.
The other thing is that the youknow they can have someone on
MSNBC who's like oh, I'm theLatino commentator, I'm the
black commentator, but thosepeople don't speak for that
community Right.
Those people are speaking again, like I said, to white liberals
(36:06):
.
So the thing is that theDemocratic Party is only only
knows how to talk to educatedwhite liberals.
They do it very well.
They own 90 percent of thatvote, but 95 percent, maybe 100
percent of that vote, but thatis 20 percent of the country.
What about the other 80 percent?
Speaker 3 (36:25):
Got you, adam.
So you know I'm gonna throw awrench right now.
Tell me if you agree with this.
A wrench right now, tell me ifyou agree with this.
Like, how would your companyspin us, like, formulate a story
about this podcast right hereabout?
From your experience with mikeand ron, how would you guys
formulate a story?
Speaker 2 (36:41):
well if I were promoting it.
I would like stage kind ofevent where you guys, you know
you guys take on some entrenchedinterest.
So, for example, you guys like.
One thing that I think would belike a interesting one is if
you like you guys, took on well,here's an idea.
That that I think is big, andparticularly not to say that you
(37:04):
only represent the blackcommunity, but that one thing,
one major cause that I have, isthe poison in our fast food.
Mcdonald's has murderedmillions of black people, black
Americans disproportionately.
I mean white Americans too.
But McDonald's, through the,they advertise specifically in
black neighborhoods.
(37:24):
They advertise their mostnastiest products with the most
sugar, sugar, the most, um,trans fat.
Right, and should it be then asurprise that the black life
expectancy is 20 to 30 yearsshorter than the white life
expectancy?
Right, that's effed up.
I'm not allowed to swear onhere.
I mean that's effed up.
(37:45):
I mean that that is like, like.
I would love to see two peoplelike you guys use your platform
to say coca-cola has the bloodof amer black americans on its
hands and do like I've alwayswanted to put coca-cola on trial
and say what you've done, youknow, with robes and everything,
um, what you have done to blackcommunities, to then come back
(38:12):
and then say, oh well, we havetwo black board members on our
board, so somehow that absolvesus of guilt.
We make charitable donations,so that somehow absolves us of
guilt.
You see what I'm saying?
Like, I think you guys shouldgo after the big entrenched
interests that say that theycare about the black community
(38:33):
in new york and especially, butthen they don't.
You know, they really don't.
Um, I don't think they even hateblack america.
They see black america'slemmings for their products,
right?
Um, that's why black muslimswon't eat that stuff.
You know what I mean.
Because they know, like, one ofmy business partners is a black
muslim and she says, uh, or shegrew up in.
(38:57):
She says she, she will not, um,she, she doesn't want to, um,
engage in that stuff.
Speaker 1 (39:03):
You know, because they know that those uh fast
food was there to essentiallypoison black america now I want,
I want to ask this question Lawand order, strategically Sure
Correct lawbreakers, notbystanders.
Don't fall for the trap.
Yes, I agree.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
I agree, I'm the biggest advocate for personal
liberties and for the right ofFirst Amendment expression, but
I also believe in law and orderand those things actually must
go together.
You can't have freedom withoutlaw and you can't have law
without freedom, because thepeople will not accept an unjust
(39:45):
society, but people.
You cannot protest justice froma perspective of law, injustice
from a perspective of law,injustice from a perspective of
law breaking.
So the idea is that we inAmerica are judged as
individuals.
So if I am holding a sign andsomeone throws a brick, I am not
accountable because someonethrows a brick.
(40:06):
I held my sign and, by the way,I take that ideologically
neutral, so I've stood up,whether it's BLM protesters or
January 6th protesters.
If you commit an act ofviolence, you should be punished
.
If you commit an act ofvandalism you should be punished
, but if you were there whenthat was done, that is not on
(40:29):
you unless you directed it.
When that was done, that is noton you unless you directed it.
So I really what I reallyoppose is the fact that
left-wing prosecutors willprosecute right-wing protesters
and right-wing prosecutors willprosecute left-wing protesters
disproportionately, and what Ithink we need is a uniform set
(40:49):
of regulations that says this iswhat protests, this is what is
allowed, this is what's notallowed.
If you do, if you vandalize thebuilding, your punishment is a
week in jail.
If you um punch a cop, yourpunishment is 10 years in jail.
I mean, if you whatever,whatever the penalty is.
Maybe maybe that's not what thepenalties are, but I'm just
(41:09):
saying that it should be common.
It doesn't matter.
See, my problem is people paytoo much attention to oh, these
are right-wing insurrectionistsor left-wing agitators.
No, you should be judged forwhat you did, right, not for
what you thought.
Because in America it's legalto be a neo-Nazi right.
(41:31):
It's legal to be a neo-naziright.
It's legal to be a neo-nazi.
You're allowed to do that,right.
You're not allowed to vandalizea building with a swastika
right.
But a vandalism.
Vandalizing a building with aswastika should have the same
penalty as vandalizing abuilding with a BLM slogan right
(41:51):
?
Because ultimately, both arevandalism and should be judged
for the content of their actions, not the content of their ideas
.
Speaker 1 (42:04):
All right, I have a question here Do you support
reparations for the descendantsof chattel slavery in the United
States and would you support ananti-Black crime bill?
Slash 2A in the wake of Peytonuh Gendron, gendron, gendron,
(42:27):
gendron, gendron.
Speaker 2 (42:29):
I don't.
I don't support reparations.
I'll tell you why.
It's because there are a lot ofgroups that have been oppressed
in the United States and thereality is that I.
What I don't want to start is,you know, every group can come
in with I mean, and I, I, Inumber one, like I should say
that child slavery was auniquely evil crime.
It was an evil crime, but thechallenges that latino americans
(42:56):
have been oppressed, gayamericans have been oppressed.
I mean in the 80s, any gayamerican, many of whom are alive
today.
People lost friends to aids,right?
Speaker 1 (43:07):
Yeah, but that's completely different, Completely
different.
I hear where you're going withthis.
I hear where you're going withit.
It was a completely differentsituation, not only just the
slavery, but then what happenedafter that, and so on and so
forth.
The crack era, the crack eraand all.
Speaker 3 (43:29):
Crime bills.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
I don't know.
I hear you and I don't have aproblem with someone saying my
father attempted to purchase ahome and was denied a loan
because he was black.
I think there's a legitimategrievance against the bank.
So I do believe banks should beable to be.
(43:51):
I think the problem is you needwhat's called standing in order
to sue.
So I think it's the sameprinciple to receive reparations
, because the thing is, Iunderstand that slavery was a
uniquely evil crime, but therewere uniquely horrible crimes,
you know, against the NativeAmericans, against Latinos,
against Asian Americans.
I mean there was an instance inCalifornia, I believe, where a
(44:16):
bunch of Asian Americans were,like purposefully drowned to
death.
Speaker 3 (44:19):
Right, I mean there were and camps and all that.
Trust me, I hear where you'recoming from.
Speaker 1 (44:25):
I hear you.
Speaker 3 (44:26):
We sympathize with every group.
I hear where you're coming from, I hear you and we sympathize
with every group.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
I hear where you're coming from.
Speaker 3 (44:29):
Hold on, ron, I sympathize with every group you
know what I'm saying Every groupfacing kind of atrocity.
I'm not taking away from nobody, right, but for people of color
, local Black people, who's 300plus years, right, that's
recorded where you wereconsidered by law three fifths
of a human being, where you weredegraded, whatever, devalued,
(44:52):
and then you know, 1865 cameabout where they say you're
so-called free and they werestill persecuted for the color
of their skin.
And you know, people had thatmentality to hate them,
prejudice for over their skincolor.
And they still today, somepeople still carry these, these,
these notions in their mindthat they have like this, this
dislike for a person, for thecolor of their skin, because
it's a social issue.
Speaker 2 (45:13):
So again, I mean, I don't disagree with any of that
but, I think the challenge ishow do you say we're?
what I don't want to do is pickfavorites, because the reality
is america has, I mean, otherthan I think I was joking to
someone because someone wasasking me about this recently I
was like, other than a few Eastcoast wasps, everyone is the
(45:36):
descendant of someone who's beenpretty badly oppressed in some
way in this country, right, um,and some of those are more
recent and some of those arefurther away.
My challenge is, I think, thatany form of reparations will
only exacerbate the divisions inthis country, because everyone
(45:56):
has a case why their group wasoppressed.
Don't disagree that slavery wasa uniquely horrible crime.
The Indian genocide was auniquely horrible crime.
The AIDS kind of exterminationof gay people and the failure to
respond was a uniquely horriblecrime.
The fact that women were deniedrights for centuries is a
(46:21):
uniquely horrible crime is auniquely horrible crime.
You know, the fact that Asianswere um interned, uh in the um
second world war was a uniquelyhorrible crime.
So the thing is, I don't want.
What I don't want to play isthe oppression Olympics.
You know what I mean.
I don't.
Speaker 1 (46:38):
I don't want to play the oppression Olympics because
the old, because what do you,what do you say about other
people who were compensated fortheir oppression?
Speaker 2 (46:47):
Well, I don't think people were I mean my only, the
only example that I understandwere compensated was the
Japanese Americans in World WarTwo were compensated, honestly,
with cents on the dollar forproperty that was stolen from
them, but for them they wereactually common, it had to be
them, right.
So so you took my house, youwere compensated, right, but the
(47:11):
fact that so you had to have alot of standing to do that,
right.
So?
So for the most part we haven'tcompensated groups in the
United States.
So that's kind of my point.
So if every other group wascompensated and black America
wasn't, then it would bedifferent.
But I I don't really think theunited states has.
So I think my concern is, likeall this does is, again it
(47:35):
starts in oppression olympicsand again I think black america
would would do well in theoppression olympics.
I mean, a black america hasbeen pretty well, pretty
oppressed in American history.
I'm not trying to say BlackAmerica probably hasn't been one
of the most oppressed groups ofall the groups that I listed.
I'm just saying that I don'tnecessarily think that's where
(47:59):
we need to go.
What I think we need to do isstop the current discrimination
against Black Americans, becauseI think in the field of
economic inclusion, in terms ofsmall businesses, black
Americans and Blackentrepreneurs are not taken
seriously and they are actuallybeing discriminated against in
many cases and I think that's aproblem.
(48:21):
I think they're trying to.
I think Black families arebeing discriminated against
through the welfare system.
I think Black communities arebeing discriminated against
through a systematic defundingof the police, but also failure
to invest in community policing.
(48:41):
So I don't disagree that BlackAmerica is due an investment,
but it's not reparations, it'san investment.
Speaker 3 (48:53):
I agree with the investment Okay.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
We'll let him go with that you don't have to agree,
by the way, I honestly— no, no,no, it's not that I get where
you're coming from.
Speaker 1 (49:05):
No, no, no, no.
It's not that I get what you'recoming from, I get where you're
coming from.
Now I want to talk about giveme some more about your company
before we go.
So let's say like, for anexample, like let's say, mike
and I we started an organization, right yeah, we started a
(49:26):
not-for-profit.
Speaker 2 (49:26):
Like, how would you guys service our not-for-profit?
Like, how would you guysservice our not-for-profit?
Well, uh, for the non-profit, Imean, if it was an ad, if it
was a 501c3?
We don't generally work with501c3 like charities, unless the
goal is to kind of promote them, um, but that's rare.
Well, we generally work withnon-profit advocacy groups.
So tell me a cause that youguys are passionate about and
I'll tell you how I wouldprosecute it.
Speaker 3 (49:47):
It's for community upliftment, political education,
vocational training for theyouth, anti-gang violence, sure.
Speaker 2 (49:58):
Yeah, I mean, this is kind of a little bit of a
riskier strategy.
But have protests with securityat all the major gang
intersections, the place wherethey do the drugs right, that
they do the drug dealing and allof whatever their illicit
activity, and I would havepeople outside saying there's a
(50:20):
better way, you don't need to dothis, so we'll really kill them
with kindness, so to speak.
So to basically say there's abetter way, invest in yourself
and then have statistics likeyour average gang member is dead
in five years.
Right, your average gang memberis either dead or in prison in
(50:42):
two years, three years, right,you know, your average gang
member has a life expectancy of28,.
Right, you know.
So just illuminate thesestatistics about gang members,
but in a in a way that workswith how people are, but shine a
light on them, right, and andthen have film crews out there
(51:03):
where, if they're reacting andain't really to them, show that
on camera, expose it and havepeople in the community turn out
and say, hey, this is wrong andwhat you know, and and use that
as a vehicle to stand up,because the problem is it's this
world war of like gangs versusthe police, and then a lot of
(51:25):
people are like well, which isworse?
The gangs are thugs, but thepolice are thugs too.
But actually having peopleshine a light and say, get this
the heck out of ourneighborhoods, it doesn't serve
our kids or our communities.
We want to own shit, and theonly way we're going to own shit
is if we get the gangs off thestreets.
Speaker 3 (51:46):
I go back.
When invested in the community,I go.
I hear what you're saying withthat.
Speaker 2 (51:51):
You don't shine a light on that because the other
thing, mikey, is that is theother thing I would probably do
is protest the banks.
I will protest all the bigbanks, because all the big banks
are telling us Stop.
Speaker 1 (52:05):
Hold on.
Why should we protest the banks?
Speaker 2 (52:09):
They're not investing in the community.
They should be.
They should be investingbillions.
They do all these pressconferences where, like Jamie
Diamond, or all these, like bigI met him.
Are out there saying, oh well,we're investing in the black
community, but when I go inpredominantly black
neighborhoods I generally don'tsee the results of those
(52:29):
investments right.
I think I want you should bedemanding, not from the
government and the taxpayers,but from the biggest banks to
say invest in us, right, Investin our community.
Because ultimately, if you giveum the same loans that you give
(52:50):
to white entrepreneurs in whiteneighborhoods, to black
entrepreneurs in blackneighborhoods, you're going to
make a lot of progress.
And if you have more owners Iwould put these things on notice
is we demand that you makethese investments in our
neighborhood?
And part of that is to me.
I don't believe that.
I don't want to do reparationsas a country, but I do believe
(53:13):
that the banks the same banksthat denied loans to Black
people for years should investin those Black communities.
So I would put the banks onnotice.
They better invest, they betterbuild and create jobs.
Speaker 1 (53:28):
I would protest the construction companies saying if
you're going to build in ourneighborhood, you better employ
people in our neighborhood thatmakes sense so I just said
something about protestingbefore, before you guys even
reached out, and I was sayingyou know, uh, someone, sheik El
said, sheik El said somethingabout protests, something about
(53:49):
protesting doesn't work orsomething to that, that that
alluding to that, and then Isaid it's not about the protest
is about what you're protestingabout and who you're protesting
against.
Speaker 3 (54:02):
It's the strategy, because you know, no, no, no
firm wants bad public.
They don't want bad PR, theydon't want a reputation on the
news Like, oh my God, you got mein the news.
Now You're hurting theintegrity of the business and
such and such.
So I get what he's saying.
Protest the banks to put moreinvestments in the neighborhood.
Claim that you care.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
So one big, big mistake, people do is they
protest their antagonist ratherthan their friends, but they're
their shitty friend, you know,because if you protest Trump,
(54:39):
it's not going to work rightBecause Trump isn't.
I mean, I guess he says hecares about the black community,
but he doesn't really care thatmuch.
I mean, I guess he says hecares about the Black community,
but he doesn't really care thatmuch.
But if you can protest thepeople who say that they care
but who don't- I got you, that'smy opinion I got you.
Speaker 3 (55:01):
We gotta have you come back on there.
Speaker 1 (55:02):
We gotta we would love to have you back, because
we have some things to talkabout yeah, and I, I, I hate the
, the meat, the media angle whenhe speaks.
Speaker 3 (55:13):
I'm like oh, I see he's good he's good, he's good,
he's good, he's good, he's good,I got you, I got you, man, you
know what?
Speaker 1 (55:19):
and also man uh shouts out to him man,
congratulations on on a solidbusiness, you know you started
off when you were really, reallyyoung, and now you're 34.
Thriving business man.
More power to you man, Muchrespect to you man.
Speaker 2 (55:34):
And I appreciate you guys for what you guys are doing
.
And when next time in New YorkI'll come in, We'll do it in
person.
Speaker 1 (55:42):
Yes, sir, yeah we're.
We're going to start in personthis month.
Speaker 2 (55:46):
Yes, sir, yeah, we're going to start in person this
month.
Oh that's awesome.
That's awesome.
I think it's great what you'redoing, and I think it's
important that people moreindependent speak up, because
this is an age dominated by theextremes that Ocasio-Cortez, the
Trumps, who are really just twosides of the same coin.
And I want I think a vastmajority of people just want
(56:07):
common sense.
They want, they want, they,they support entrepreneurship,
they want safe streets, theysupport justice for people of
all races and religions andethnicities.
They want, you know, they wanta fair playing field.
You know and, and, and I thinkyou guys generally share that
value.
I know we don't a hundredpercent agree on the reparation
(56:28):
thing, but I think you guysgenerally share that value.
I know we don't 100% agree onthe reparation thing, but I
think generally we share a lotof the same values.
Speaker 1 (56:32):
And I really like that.
Yes, sir, yes, sir.
On that note, thank you forcoming out this evening.
I really appreciate you.
Come back again, especially inperson.
That'll be great and we willstay in contact.
You know, tell everybody wherethey can find you on X.
I think X is one of the places.
Speaker 2 (56:52):
I'm on X slash Twitter at CEO Adam Swart, so
CEO, and then my name AdamS-W-A-R-T.
You can check us out onlinecrowdsondemandcom.
That's crowdsondemandcom.
That's crowdsondemandcom.
So yeah, if you have a cause ora company that needs to be
promoted and needs a little legup, to just kind of a catalyst
(57:15):
to get people to notice and payattention, let us know.
We always are interested.
So I so appreciate your guys'time and I look forward to
continuing the conversation.
Speaker 3 (57:28):
Definitely, most definitely, we have to go
forward.
Speaker 1 (57:32):
Have a good evening and we're out of here, peace.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.