Keep trying to justify your inability to think before speaking. You saw something that fit your narrative, it perfectly confirmed all of your biases, so you shut down all mental faculties and now try to justify it after the fact.
You are the one with biases; so desperate to delegitimize one who you assume is a mindless anti-Semite, that you resort to condescending remarks about how I should "keep trying" when I have already demonstrated that my comment (which was a humorous head nod foremost, and a political observation only secondarily -- evidenced by my use of the meme "obligatory:") was justifiable rationally.
Your initial source claimed that and you did nothing to qualify this claim.
Forgive me, I thought you had reasonable reading comprehension. My first source stated that the name has Jewish origins, not that the origins are exclusively Jewish. No word or phrase suggested unambiguously any kind of exclusivity. You again out yourself as the one with biases and an inability to read what has actually been presented.
You will not admit that you're wrong. You were wrong about the contents of the book and you could be wrong about the religion of the author. But you cannot entertain such a possibility because you lack the intellectual honesty to admit being wrong.
You do not know me. Again you make assumptions about my character to suit your own biases and assumptions. I admit to being wrong when I see that I am wrong, frequently. It is truth I am devoted to, not any narrative (beyond the narratives of truth, morality, and liberty if you would call those narratives). I have already stated my agreement with you that the name is not necessarily Jewish, but you are failing to understand that I was not using the name alone to come to my conclusion in my original comment. I used the context of the book cover and title in conjunction with the name to draw my conclusion. I did not make an assumption about the contents of the book (you say I was "wrong" about that, when my point in no way depended on that) and I only assumed the author was Jewish based on the other context I observed.
If he is not Jewish and the book is pure satire and actually makes fun of race-mixing (I would have to read it to know for sure) then I would accept that without trouble. It does not violate my "narrative" as it would simply be truth. My comment would sustain its value in terms of very easily observable trends elsewhere as well as humour.
I am not concerned by your desperation to out me as something I am not, nor am I bothered by your many assumptions about my character and intentions.
Good day.