Lara Logan: A classic example of not even wrong

A Fox News host went on a QAnon show, and the absurdity just blew up from there. She started talking about Darwin.

What is the only thing on Earth that is actually renewable? It’s life. And they can, you know, go back to the big-bang theory and Darwin. I mean, when I found out, does anyone know when, who employed Darwin? Where Darwinism comes from? Well, I mean, you know, look it up, the Rothschilds. It goes right back to 10 Downing Street and the same people who employed Darwin and that’s when Darwin, you know, wrote his theory of evolution and so on and so on. And I’m not saying that none of that is true. I’m just saying Darwin was hired by someone to come up with the theory. Right? Based on evidence. OK, fine.

Um, no one employed Darwin. He was independently wealthy, getting his money from his inheritance (being related to the Wedgwood industrialists helped), rents and business investments, and book royalties. No one paid him to write The Origin, other than John Murray, that is, who was his publisher, and who also published Sir Walter Scott and Lord Byron. Now there’s a grand group of conspirators.

I know of no connection with the Rothschilds, other than that an anti-Semitic hate group (a term that applies to both Fox News and QAnon) wants desperately to connect the Jews to everything.

I did look it up, and didn’t find any links between Darwin and the Rothschild bankers. Well, except for maybe this weird incoherent rant about Rothschild-Khazarian Mafia.

Irony Alert! Darwin’s famous “scientific” voyage to the Galapagos Islands as the resident naturalist aboard the H.M.S. Beagle in 1831 was ostensibly made to catalogue different species of plants and animals, but in actuality was a prelude to pervert the history and Biblical origins of Mankind with the publication of his scientism (fake science) books, On the Origin of the Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871).

Of course Darwin (Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Weber, and many, many other scientists and academics, philosophers and intellectuals since the last quarter of the 17th century) were virtually all financed with Rothschild (Fake Jewish Khazarian Mafia) money, (including all his books, essays, articles, and lecture tours) proposing his Theory of Evolution Atheism and Eugenics Racism which brought with it instant national and international fame and celebrity. Why were the Rothschilds interested in financing this obscure naturalist with no scientific expertise in either biology or zoology? Following the Kabbalah Law of Opposites and Babylonian Talmudism, the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia funded these anti-intellectual enterprises with the specific intent to deconstruct and ultimately destroy Christianity by pushing the academic atheism Big Lie that mankind is no different than the animals, and in fact descended from them.

If the crazed grammar doesn’t persuade you, they also published this image.

Yeah. Look it up.


  1. birgerjohansson says

    Factcheck:The real reason Darwin went to Galapagos was to locate the Chrystal of Zinthar.
    After Darwin’s death it disappeared until it two centuries later turned up in South Park, leading to a confrontation between Robert Smith and Mecha Barbara Streisand.

  2. Reginald Selkirk says

    @2 After Darwin’s death it disappeared until it two centuries later turned up…

    In 2082? Somehow I don’t remember that.

  3. Reginald Selkirk says

    Um, no one employed Darwin. He was independently wealthy, getting his money from his inheritance (being related to the Wedgwood industrialists helped), rents and business investments, and book royalties.

    IOW, from Capitalism. He lived off his capital, not his labour. Must be some kind of communist plot. (sound of gears stripping, smoke pours from ears)

  4. Pierce R. Butler says

    Last year I did a web search for the world’s major banks.

    None of the articles even mentioned the Rothschilds.

    They mostly focused on China – which must be a front for the R’s, as revealed by the “chi” in both names…

  5. birgerjohansson says

    Jewish spaCe lasers! Benghazi! The airlinEr that Hit the second TOwer was used To spray chEmtrails!

  6. says

    She isn’t wrong, she is right. Far Right.

    Facts has nothing to do with this, it’s all about building a foundation of lies that people can choose to believe in.

  7. Reginald Selkirk says

    @6 None of the articles even mentioned the Rothschilds.

    And that’s the way they like it.

  8. Pierce R. Butler says

    Ann foidermore… Western Khazaria encompassed what is today — eastern Ukraine.

    It all!! now fits togetehr!!1!

  9. Akira MacKenzie says

    @ 10

    I get the feeling this vile scut is of the “The Catholic Church is the WHORE OF BABYLON!!,!11!!” persuasion.

  10. snarkrates says

    OK, so I think this answers the question of whether Conservatism is a mental illness, but is it treatable?

  11. raven says

    Laura Logan is a classic example of a word salad.
    It will be in textbooks for decades as a fine specimen of the literary form.

  12. Larry says

    getting his money from his inheritance (being related to the Wedgwood industrialists helped

    Aha! I knew it. Darwinism bought and paid for by Big Pottery!

  13. microraptor says

    Kinda weird how conservatives are being anti-Hitler while simultaneously being so pro-Nazi.

  14. guerillasurgeon says

    Darwin was simply one of those 19th-century upper-class/wealthy scientists who could have dabbled, but engaged in science seriously.So you got evolution, and eugenics from very similar sources. :)

  15. nomdeplume says

    When your political currency is insanity, the more insane you can demonstrate yourself to be, the more successful you will be. Republicans are in a race to the bottom of the dung heap and are wallowing in it.

  16. chrislawson says

    Can’t agree with your headline, PZ.

    Pauli’s possibly apocryphal “not even wrong” quote meant that the paper in question hadn’t formulated its argument well enough to be testable or even meaningful. “Not even wrong” is on target for Deepak Chopra, or the creationist “why are there still monkeys?” defence. But in this case, Logan is clearly and egregiously wrong.

  17. chrislawson says


    For me, the final nail in the Republican coffin was the 2012 nomination campaign, where only one solitary “respectable” conservative ran, Jon Huntsman. (By “respectable” I don’t mean I liked him or his fiscal-conservative politics, but that at least his platform was not founded on science-denial or bigotry-enablement and he openly rejected “negative” campaigning.)

    In that 2012 campaign, he was up against Santorum, Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, that is, the absolute bottom of the republican scum barrel, as well as eventual winner Romney (awful, but nowhere near as gut-churningly bad as the others). And despite this, Huntsman only got to the third round of primaries before withdrawing, having come seventh on the ballot.

    This was when I knew that there was no hope for conservative American politics. The Republican party had decayed to the point of political gangrene. Instead of a much-needed amputation, the American body politic allowed the gangrene to spread — Romney’s failure to win the election was blamed on not being far-right enough, and in 2016 there was not a single Republican nominee who did not represent the nadir of conservatism. The so-called moderate candidate was Jeb Fucking Bush…who, just like Huntsman, dropped out after the third primary because he wasn’t nightmarish enough for the conservative base.

    No doubt others had worked this out way earlier than 2012, but that was the moment of awareness for me that the Republican Party was too far gone to move back from the deadlight.

  18. nomdeplume says

    @25 Yes indeed. They have got into the mindset, shared with the Australian conservatives, that if you lose an election the answer is to move further right. Classic recent case in South Australia, where the Liberals were beaten badly, and a candidate for the new leadership announced that the problem had been the lack of right wing policies, and the rejection of some fundamenatlist pentacostals for membership!

  19. calgor says

    Despite all the BS espoused about Darwin by these half-wits, the fact that they couldn’t even get Darwin’s role on the Beagle correct actually annoys me the most (I must be tired..). Darwin was the captain’s companion (independent confidant) not the resident naturalist, the role of official naturalist would belong to the ship’s doctor.

  20. KG says

  21. KG says

    Incidentally, FitzRoy was a pioneer of weather forecasting and, ironically considering his opposition to Darwin, got into trouble with fundamentalist Christians as a result – they considered it an impious insult to God’s sovereign power over the weather. In 2002, the UK Met Office renamed one of the sea areas (of the northwest coast of Spain) for which it issues forecasts “FitzRoy” after him.

  22. Reginald Selkirk says

    Benjamin Bynoe – surgeon on board the Beagle

    Bynoe was assigned to Beagle during her maiden voyage, surveying the coast of South America south of the Rio Plata, but it was during the second voyage that he met Charles Darwin, then just 22 and a guest of the captain Robert FitzRoy. When the ship sailed on 27 December 1831, Bynoe was the assistant surgeon, but became acting surgeon when Robert McComick invalided himself home.

  23. hemidactylus says

    Is Q even doing drops anymore on the chans? Think about it. Obscurism recycled and spewed out by the bakers. Boomers.

    Why are so many ignorant of Darwin? Hayseed education system? Jefferson’s wall made of styrofoam? Why is FFRF so busy?

    Has anyone listened to podcasts? QAnon Anonymous? Three funny guys. Chuckling it up. Chuckle. Chuck. Darwin.

    Why are dingbats following breadcrumbs to Khazarians, Long Dead Bavarians, and Shape Shifting Interdimensional Lacertilians? Diversion from reality. Dumbasses.

    Not Q. H. Lizard.

  24. Reginald Selkirk says

    “My friend the Doctor is an Ass”

    In 1831, McCormick was assigned to the Beagle as the ship’s surgeon. In those days, the Royal Navy expected all ships officers to collect scientific information for the good of England. Traditionally the ship’s surgeon was considered the ship’s naturalist. So effectively, when the Beagle sailed, McCormick was the naturalist and Darwin was the captain’s pal (who happened to also know a lot about the natural world). When McCormick signed on, he expected to be the one getting all the glory for new and interesting discoveries in the New World.

    Well it never really worked out that way. From the beginning, Captain FitzRoy just seemed to like Darwin better – treating him as the naturalist and giving him all the “plum” assignments. One of the best examples was when the ship reached the “unexplored” shores of St. Paul’s Rocks (see St. Paul’s Rocks I and St. Paul’s Rocks II). Darwin got to be in the first boat to go ashore and explore. McCormick got stuck on the second boat which, as Janet Browne put it in her biography of Darwin, “was waved away and told to circle about catching fish for dinner” (Charles Darwin Voyaging). He was ticked off and never really got over it.

    McCormick writes of leaving:

    “Having found myself in a false position on board a small and very uncomfortable vessel, and very much disappointed in my expectations of carrying out my natural history pursuits, every obstacle having been placed in the way of my getting on shore and making collections, I got permission from the admiral in command of the station here to be superseded and allowed a passage home in H.M.S. Tyne.” (Voyages of Discovery in the Arctic and Antarctic Seas, McCormick 1884)

    FitzRoy does not even seem to acknowledge the doctor’s leaving, though in several correspondence Darwin notes that “he [McCormick] chose to make himself disagreeable to the Captain & to Wickham”. Yeah – he was probably trying to get Darwin sent home…

    Upon first meeting McCormick in Plymouth Darwin wrote to his mentor, John Henslow:

    “My friend the Doctor is an ass, but we jog on very amicably: at present he is in great tribulation, whether his cabin shall be painted French Grey or a dead white— I hear little excepting this subject from him.” (Correspondence to John Henslow, 30 October 1831)

  25. lumipuna says

    I mean, anyone with a pen could’ve been hired to write a book of evilutionist pseudoscience but only Darwin’s scientific authority could make it accepted worldwide. Just consider how famous the man is among biologists even today! s/

  26. blf says

    The mildly deranged penguin claims she — via a multifractal hyperweb of dummy corporations (most registered extrasolar) — hired Captain Fitzroy, and hence Darwin. She says this was part of a still-developing plot plotted with the Glápagos penguins (Spheniscus mendiculus) to, um, well, plot something… at this point she gets very agitated and eats cheese. (Since she always eats cheese, it’s unclear if she’s any more agitated than usual.) It’s very unclear what this ongoing plot is about, but is probably like her other plots, and involves either cheese, MUSHROOMS!, ruling all multiverses, or all four.

    This is, of course, a far saner and more believable hypothesis than that burbled by Lara Logan; you caan tel beescuz it’is roton inn’t amercantican jus licke jeezbos speoked ¡

  27. mikeschmitz says

    I think that Lara might be someone who we might want to give a break to. Trauma often turns people to the right.

    Recall her experience in Tahrir Square, and while it doesn’t excuse the idiocy, it at least explains it.

  28. macallan says

    Kinda weird how conservatives are being anti-Hitler while simultaneously being so pro-Nazi.

    They like nazis who don’t lose.

  29. Doc Bill says

    Lara Logan has been pushing conspiracy fantasy for well over a decade. She was once hired as a journalist and even worked for CBS before her fictitious reporting caught up with her and she was fired. She appears to be mentally unhinged.

  30. leerudolph says

    Reginald Selkirk @24 quotes someone quoting a letter by Darwin about McCormick’s “great tribulation, whether his cabin shall be painted French Grey or a dead white“—my emphasis is there to highlight this clear evidence that already then, Darwin was pushing Critical Race Theory!

  31. rrhain says

    They can’t even get the genealogies right.

    No, “Hitler” was not Alois’ “mother-in-law’s maiden name.” It’s connected to his stepfather, Johann Georg Hiedler. Alois didn’t know who his father was and petitioned the Austrian government to have his stepfather be recognized as his biological father. Thus, he took his name. But, the government misspelled the name as “Hitler.”

    Now, this was around 1876. Alois didn’t marry Klara until 1885. And indeed, Klara’s mother’s name was Johanna Hiedler. It is because of the unknown parentage of Alois that there is speculation that Klara was actually Alois’ first cousin once removed or possibly his half-niece.

    And no, Evelyn de Rothschild is not the “owner of the US Fed.”

  32. ospalh says

    Wait, what? Now Hitler has two Jewish, paternal grandfathers?
    There is a better known just as antisemitic theory, that Alois Hitler’s father was a Jew called Frankenberger. No records of any real person like that exist.
    The real father/grandfather probably was either the man Maria Schicklgruber (not Matild Schueckelgruber) married, named Hiedler, or that man’s married brother.