I didn't insult you personally, I remarked on all your factual errors

This is a bold claim to make and I might just have believed that your intentions were nothing by pure, if you had not gone and added this at the end:

Obviously something's pretty seriously wrong with you; and at least part of it, is this spontaneous impulse-lying thing.

Dont worry, I thrive on personal insults since they are usually a reflecting into the state of the mind of the person I am debating. Even more so in your case since you make some blatant claims, and then instead of backing them up pick fights about typos.

Regardless of how much you claim you don't understand what I am saying, I am getting a serious shill vibes from you. I already gave you the benefit of doubt when you start talking about Operation Trust, and you are doing nothing to quell that vibe. However I am going to give you yet another benefit of doubt, and give you a chance to clarify your own claims instead of getting angry at the messenger who breaks it to you that you are wrong.

Here is a claim you made earlier:

Devolution is a set of conditions the US military as well as other modern mils define as the stepwise, not all-at-once destruction of the previous system.

Here is the definition of Devolution according to the source you yourself provided:

The transfer or transition from one person to another of a right, liability, title, estate, or office. Francisco v. Aguirre, 94 Cal. ISO, 29 Pac. 495; Owen v.Insurance Co., 50 Hun, 455, 10 N. Y. Supp. 75.Iu ecclesiastical law. The forfeiture of a right or power (as the right of presentationto a living) in consequence of its non-user by the person holding it, or of some other actor omission on his part, and its resulting transfer to the person next entitled.In Scotch law. The transference of the right of purchase, from the highest bidder atan auction sale, to the next highest, when the former fails to pay his bid or furnish securityfor its payment within the time appointed. Also, the reference of a matter incontroversy to a third person (called “overs- man”) by two arbitrators to whom it hasbeen submitted and who are unable to agree.

The entirety of the definition is the transference of power under certain conditions.

Now, explain to me where in this definition it refers to a "destruction of the previous system" that you claimed.

Once we get past this fundamental issue, we can discuss how long it took for the Internet to be bound with central controls, or why millions of people went and got the vaccines even with the Internet in place fulfilling (according to you) the DARPA's original vision.

Note: Writing pages of essay without addressing the clear and concise question I have raised here will confirm that you are nothing but a shill.