Bizarre Even by Fox News Standards.

Seems that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Darwinism in general is a hoax funded by Jews. According to Lara Logan of Fox Nation fame you can look it up. It goes right back to the Rothchild family AND 10 Downing Street. Riiiight.

So, I looked it up. It is nonsense. There is no evidence that the Rothchild family paid Darwin to develop his theory that I could find. I did find, however, that the current Lord Rothchild recently made an investment in a new private equity fund called “Darwin Private Equity” so obviously the Jewish plot continues. But, don’t worry. Jews will not replace us.

17 thoughts on “Bizarre Even by Fox News Standards.

  1. I am uninterested in an insane opinion piece from Rolling stone. Show me Logan’s statement in context.

    Oh, and in the unlikely event that the Rothchild family funded the Beagle’s scientific research, good for them. Jewish philanthropists have a long history of supporting the advancement of science.


  2. You could make a tenuous case that the Rothchilds funded the development of Darwin’s theory as follows:

    Darwin’s father financed Darwin to travel on the HMS Beagle, which was a gunship in the Royal Navy.
    When Darwin returned from the voyage his scientific notes were well regarded and prompted the British treasury to grant Darwin one thousand pounds to develop them, a project that led ultimately to the publication of Origin of Species.
    The Rothchild family had a controlling interest in the Bank of England, which handled the country’s treasury accounts and would have both financed the Beagle’s voyage and issued the grant that Darwin subsequently received.

    The case is tenuous, however, because it lacks detail. It hardly seems necessary to mention the Rothchilds at all, except that as powerful bankers they may have been philosophically disposed to the advancement of science.

    Nevertheless, I have some sympathy for Logan’s larger point that science as we practice it in the West, especially as funded by governments, drives out spiritual inquiry. I believe this process will reverse in the coming years as the various inadequacies of science become more generally appreciated. But that’s a topic for a different thread.


    1. Yes, that case you make is tenuous. Very tenuous.

      The point is that ignornantly and bizarrely dragging the Rothchilds into what was a metaphysical discussion revealed – and appealed to – anti-Semitic bigotry. Since joining Fox News after her famously bogus Benghazi reporting got her fired from CBS, Logan seems to have been seeking out controversy and now she has done it again. Here is one of her past mini-scandals…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “anti-Semitic bigotry”

        I don’t see how, unless merely mentioning the Rothchilds is anti-Semitic.


        1. “I don’t see how. . . ”

          It is seen that way because the Rothchild family has been at the center of Antisemitic fables, myths and lies for a couple of centuries. In this case, Logan is presenting the “fact” that Darwinism is a hoax that was paid for by this Jewish family.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. You are saying that merely mentioning the Rothchilds is anti-Semitic. Now that’s a tenuous proposition.


          2. “You are saying that merely mentioning the Rothchilds is anti-Semitic. Now that’s a tenuous proposition.”

            It depends on the context, of course. In this context, blaming them for the “hoax” of the Theory of Evolution – the intellectual bête noire of “Christians” – it is very clearly antisemitic. As mentioned before, it is part of a long history of blaming Jews for the world’s misfortunes. You may remember that another of your darlings – Marjorie Taylor Greene – attributed California’s 2018 wildfires to space lasers funded and aimed by the Rothchilds.

            Liked by 2 people

  3. I don’t think it was praise of the Rothchilds that Logan had in mind when she shared that “fact.”

    As for your whining about Rolling Stone being the source Yahoo used, (a) you are showing your age and (b) the story included a link to the entire interview.

    Ms Logan actually made quite a bit of news with this tidbit as an easy Google search would instantly reveal. But you would rather whine. Google this “Lara Logan Darwin” to learn more. Or don’t.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Mentioning the Rothschilds, along with Soros and other Jewish bankers has been the tactic of anti-Semites for centuries. Even Trump used that infamous “sheriff’s star” with a stack of money along with listing a few big Jewish names in the banking business.

    The populist right wing loves that stuff. Scapegoats are just so much fun, and the Jews have provided that “entertainment” for populist bigots since Moby Dick was a minnow. (Was he circumcised?)

    Attaching that banking family name to evolution…man, it just doesn’t get any better than that for riling up the mobs.

    Bottom line, is FOX that desperate to have Logan show her anti-Semitic bigotry? Come on, that is so last century. Bashing Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and Asians is not enough for the right wing nuts?

    Evidently not.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. You guys sure know how to make a weird story out of a non-story. What Rolling Stone does is make a liberal parody out of general discussion and print the parody as some breaking news like the title of this post did. There was no hoax mentioned and mentioning the Rothschilds as funders of science does not equate to any anti-semitism.
    What you are really doing is attempting to smear the intelligence of a very large majority of Americans and probably a large majority of the world. A full 73% of American believe God either created life or at least guided evolution of life. I am more inclined to follow science but am in no position be so utterly disrespectful of others beliefs as you.


    1. I agree, it was metaphysical discussion about ultimate mysteries of our being. That made it all the more bizarre that she would interject such nonsense about the origins of one of our most successful and thoroughly proven scientific theories. Not only, according to her, is Darwinian evolution not true, it is also the product of Jewish money.

      I showed ZERO disrespect for her obviously religious views about life. None. You just made that up. What I did disrespect is her spreading bizarre antisemitic nonsense.

      Just so you know, the measure of what is TRUE is not what people believe. It is what can be proven based on EVIDENCE.

      What science tells us about the nature of the world, the origins of our universe, the birth of the stars, the beginnings and evolution of life is ALL derived from observation, evidence, and experiment. NOTHING that religion teaches about the nature of the world is based on anything. None of it can be proved or disproved. It is empty words without any real referent.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Oh give me break. Of course you are being completely disrespectful of others beliefs. Darwinism, like the big bang theory, is only a theory, not proven fact. Religion is based on faith. I say again that I follow the science but I will leave it to you to smugly tell almost 75% of the world that they are all idiots. Honestly, in light of the narcissism you project, you have no idea how Trumpian you really are. It’s quite amusing…


        1. “Darwinism, like the big bang theory, is only a theory, not proven fact. ”

          Only a theory? Riiight.

          You really, really want to be disrespected. All part of that victimhood thing you people love so much. I for one am happy to accommodate. And if you find it disrespectful to refer to nonsense as nonsense the way this article does, too bad.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Good site.

            I often refer to the Theory of Gravity. Both gravity and evolution are facts. How they actually work have been studied extensively and are outlined in their respective theories. At times, as science progresses, new information about the “how” may alter our understanding, but evolution still takes place and people still fall down.

            That is how I see it in my non-expert opinion.

            Liked by 3 people

    2. There is a huge difference between the 43% who believe in creation as being 10,000 years ago and the rest who believe in a God initiated or guided evolution going back a billion or more years. Origins of the universe are still up for debate even if the timelines and methodology are well known.

      Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s