For example, the reason we call Robert Evans a fed is because he literally takes money from Bellingcat who are a news outlet that is basically exclusively funded to make the claim that the U.S. government and empire is good for progressive causes. That the only realistic alternative is American ISIS (as if protestant christo-fascists would ever be able to ally themselves together enough to pull something like that off, they literally can't go three months without snitching on each other, and also forgetting that the U.S. was one of the primary funders of ISIS and was trying to pit it against Syria).

And given the fact that they are allied with "Data for Progress" and the billionaires that funded the massive progressive-libertarian wet-fart that was Occupy, we have to make the assumption that even if the feds are not in control of those movements, they are not actually threats to capitalist order (which if you know any historical theory or praxis, of course they are not), which is why they are allowed to take root in the American zeitgeist.

Just like how we know that the OG BLM members from 2014 are not the same people that got prime-time media interviews and then squandered the money on a mansion, because the OG members were dead from 'gang-related killings'. Even if they weren't feds (which they probably were, remember the weird armed BP larpers who then advocated for 'respecting the police'), the alternative is with allies like these, who needs feds?

Look, I know I genuinely sound crazy sometimes, but to me it is far more insane that all of this information has been completely glossed over and memory holed and no-one ever brings it up. Not Chapo, not True-Anon, no one questions the veracity and authenticity of these movements.