For a free digital book click here on Deconstructing Devolution

If you would like to buy a physical copy of this book you can go here: Devolution Masquerade

In March 2020, an intriguing article emerged under the title Exclusive: Inside The Military’s Top Secret Plans If Coronavirus Cripples the Government. which introduced the compelling theory known as Devolution by Jon Herold. This theory quickly swept across the internet like wildfire, with Jon presenting substantial evidence and no alternative interpretations in sight. As a result, it was embraced by the online community, seemingly as if Jon had uncovered a treasure trove of knowledge.

However, a notable feature of this theory was the lack of counterarguments and opposing perspectives. As a result, many individuals succumbed to confirmation bias and accepted the theory as an absolute truth without subjecting it to rigorous scrutiny through healthy debates and discussions.

This situation highlighted the critical importance of open and critical dialogue when evaluating such theories. Genuine researchers, journalists, and critical thinkers actively seek opposing viewpoints and ask probing questions to maintain a balanced perspective. They consider all available information before arriving at conclusions, and they approach critiques with an open mind.

In contrast, the online community that embraced the Devolution theory tended to treat it as an unassailable doctrine on platforms like TruthSocial, Re-Truthing the information and echoing it without validating the information, which often led to the rejection of any counterarguments, with cognitive dissonance frequently resulting in hostility or dismissal of opposing views.

From an emergency management perspective, it's crucial to highlight that the Devolution theory and the Newsweek article introducing it did not adequately consider the intricacies of the National Response Plan and the principles of Continuity of Operations (COOP). The theory proposed handing over government authority to the military, which raised significant constitutional concerns.

The National Continuity Implementation Plan (NCIP), which is based on the principles of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), was developed to ensure a coordinated, unified, and efficient response to emergencies and disasters. Importantly, it prioritizes a civilian-led approach, recognizing the importance of constitutional governance and the rule of law. In contrast, the Devolution theory advocated for the wholesale transfer of governmental authority to the military, a proposition that raised profound concerns regarding its alignment with the core tenets of the U.S. governmental system, established laws, and the Constitution.

When assessing such theories, it's essential to weigh their compatibility with established emergency management principles and constitutional norms. The Devolution theory, as presented in the Newsweek article, overlooked these fundamental aspects, emphasizing the importance of critically evaluating such ideas within the context of emergency management and national governance.

In the Newsweek article, it begins by delving into a contingency scenario related to continuity of government plans in the context of potential government incapacitation caused by a crisis like the coronavirus. This scenario is not entirely novel, as discussions of this nature have been taking place for years. Notably, in May 2003, the Continuity of Government Commission released a report titled "Preserving our Institutions." This non-governmental organization was established to study and provide recommendations on matters related to the continuity of government in the United States during times of crisis or emergency.

The key findings and recommendations from this report included the following:

1. Need for a Legal Framework

2. Presidential Succession

3. Delegation of Authority

4. Resilience of Critical Infrastructure

5. Clear Lines of Communication

6. Accountability and Oversight

7. Involvement of the Private Sector

8. Public Awareness and Education

Furthermore, the second report of the Continuity of Government Commission, titled The Continuity of the Presidency, built upon the first report to address issues related to presidential continuity during times of crisis or emergencies, offering further insights and recommendations in these critical areas.

The second report highlights that the theory did not introduce new information but failed to acknowledge existing research on continuity of government plans. In essence, it underscores the necessity of engaging in well-rounded discussions and considering established principles when evaluating unconventional theories.

Devolution Theory

The introductory article of the Devolution Series, authored by Jon Herold published on July 2nd, 2021, set out to explore the intriguing concept of Devolution. It started by following the Newsweek article by contemplating the scenario of COVID-19 potentially crippling the U.S. government, leaving readers with a significant premise to ponder. The series aimed to delve into the complexities surrounding government continuity during a crisis and the implications for the U.S. political landscape.

However, as the article progressed, it underwent a notable shift in focus. Instead of delving deeper into the scenario of COVID-19 and its potential impact on the continuity of government operations, the article turned its attention to the 2020 elections and the contentious issues surrounding them. This transition was significant, and lead the narrative away from the initial scenario of a public health crisis affecting governance. With the shift in the article's narrative taking the attention off of a public health crisis to the complexities of the 2020 elections, it led to a dissonance stating that devolution was not involved around the COVID-19 scenario, but evolved from one scenario to another landing on elections with an aim to delve into the theory of Devolution due to elections fraud instead.

And I will show you the shift…

Summary of the First Devolution in the Series

Jon emphasizes the importance of skepticism and critical thinking, urging readers not to blindly follow anyone's assertions, including his own. Rather, he encourages individuals to investigate the research presented throughout the series and formulate their own conclusions.

Jon points out the intriguing timeline of events, with orders related to continuity of government plans issued in February 2020, a month before the pandemic became a global concern. This chronology coincides with discussions about a "fringe theory" regarding the virus's origins, which Senator Tom Cotton raised on February 17, 2020.

The theory suggests that while Trump was preparing continuity of government plans, there was a simultaneous investigation into the origins of the virus, which eventually led to claims that the virus emerged from a biosafety lab, an assertion that gained credence over time due to the disinformation surrounding COVID-19, raising questions about whether it was an accidental event or a deliberate act. The answers to these questions are pivotal to the Devolution theory because they served as the catalyst for election manipulation and, subsequently, Trump's preparedness for the alleged theft of the 2020 election.

Jon also delves into Trump's policies and actions concerning China, particularly his stance on tariffs, investigations into Chinese economic practices, and the negotiation of a Phase One trade deal in January 2020. The critical connection lies in the fact that this trade deal coincided with Trump's impeachment trial, signaling a tumultuous period in American politics.

Moreover, Jon notes the mounting pressure on the Biden family due to their ties with Ukraine and China, alongside other significant challenges faced by the Obama administration. These challenges were compounded by Trump's America-first platform, the booming economy, and a perceived lack of scandalous revelations that could damage his presidency. China's desire to see Trump out of office becomes a significant element of the theory.

Jon asserts that the only way for Trump's opponents to secure a victory in the 2020 election was to manipulate the outcome. The theory suggests that the pandemic provided a convenient pretext for such manipulation.

The article then transitions to the election itself, describing it as riddled with controversies. Jon draws attention to the substantial increase in mail-in voting, primarily due to the pandemic, which he alleges was used as a smokescreen for fraudulent activities. The theory proposes that Trump was aware of the potential for election fraud and had been proactively addressing these concerns throughout his tenure.

Trump's actions, such as establishing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, signing an Executive Order to deter foreign interference in U.S. elections, and creating the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, are presented as indicative of his readiness to confront election-related issues.

Do you see the shift? The theory initially contemplated a scenario where COVID-19 could potentially impact the U.S. government. However, it soon transitioned to a different focus. This theory asserts that President Trump, with the support of the U.S. military and key individuals within federal agencies, identified foreign interference in the 2020 election, which is described as an act of war. In this theory, Biden's role is portrayed as more symbolic than substantive, with genuine decision-makers safeguarding the country and preparing for an imminent revelation.

This shift in focus, from a hypothetical scenario involving a public health crisis to election fraud, could have left some readers surprised as the narrative evolved from one scenario to another. Nevertheless, the theory aims to explore the implications of alleged foreign interference in the 2020 election, with specific emphasis on the actions taken in response.

As the article delves into the election's controversial aspects, it becomes evident that the Devolution theory seeks to establish a connection between these election-related controversies and broader concerns regarding the integrity of the U.S. government. According to the theory, Trump's actions in addressing election integrity issues were not merely responses to conventional concerns but part of a larger strategy to protect the nation from foreign interference, which was perceived as a severe threat to the United States.

The narrative suggests that Trump was aware of and proactive in identifying alleged foreign interference, framing it as an act of war. In this view, the 2020 election wasn't just a political contest but a battleground where foreign powers sought to manipulate the outcome, potentially compromising the nation's security.

However, the proposal within the theory to transfer governmental authority to the military, as a response to this perceived act of war, raises significant constitutional concerns. It challenges the foundational principles of the U.S. governmental system, established laws, and the Constitution itself. This proposed transfer of power invokes the need to critically assess its compatibility with constitutional norms, the rule of law, and the principles of American democracy.

In essence, while the shift in focus within the theory may initially surprise some readers, it is a deliberate choice to uncover a deeper layer of complexity within the narrative. By exploring the theory's core message and the significance of this shift, readers can better appreciate its implications and engage in the critical thinking and open discussion essential when evaluating unconventional theories.

In comparing the Devolution theory to the original Newsweek article, we can discern significant differences in their scenarios, emphases, and proposed actions. The transition from a hypothetical government crisis caused by a pandemic to the Devolution theory's focus on election fraud and national security underscores the importance of scrutinizing conspiracy theories and the information they present.

It is essential to recognize these differences because they highlight its dynamic nature and the need for critical evaluation. The shift in the Devolution theory's focus serves as a stark reminder that a conspiracy theory can evolve and transform over time, potentially leading to a distorted narrative. It underscores the importance of vigilance in scrutinizing the content and considering the implications of these shifts.

Moreover, the proposal within the theory to transfer governmental authority to the military has raised significant constitutional concerns. This highlights the importance of evaluating the compatibility of such proposals with established constitutional norms, the rule of law, and the foundational principles of American democracy. The suggestion of the military taking over governance is not in line with constitutional norms and established policies, emphasizing the need for adherence to the democratic processes and the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

In conclusion, the contrast between the Devolution theory and the Newsweek article underscores the evolving nature of unconventional theories and the critical importance of thorough scrutiny. It encourages us to engage in well-rounded discussions, consider established principles, and think critically when evaluating ideas that challenge conventional wisdom. This critical approach is essential in navigating the complex landscape of unorthodox theories while safeguarding the integrity of information and upholding democratic principles and constitutional norms.