Commenter on my review of a book that attacks "wine headed wops" and "communist pollacks," and ridicules a woman who had just seen the back of her husband's head blown away...

...digs a deeper hole for himself.

File under "Anti-Catholics are nuts."

My Amazon review of "Why I am not a Catholic."

S. Wilder writes:

No, I'm not taking the position that the Catholic church was started by "negroes" If you took the time to study the history with an open mind without prejudice, you would see that the Latin church DID originate in Africa (Alexandria, Egypt). The Two Babylons documents this. There's no bigotry, there are facts presented that can be researched. You can have your opinion and say. A book for "bigots" well then you haven't read the Bible very much have you? It's full of "bigoted" statements from Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul. But if you're ecumenical minded, then the Bible would indeed be "bigoted" as well as "racist" You sir are the "bigot" for PREJUDGING (prejudice) people as being that way just because there are words and statements in the book that apparently offend you and because you don't like the author without knowing the person or people you're judging. Kick up dust all you want about the contents of the book, but the FACTS remain.

I respond:

The purpose of a review is to let a potential reader know what to expect from the book before they invest their time or money in it. My review did exactly that. You don’t dispute that my quotes were accurate. Rather, what you contend is that I cherry-picked the quotes in order to …what? Give the reader the impression that the book is written by a bigot? I don’t need to do that; Dr. Ruckman has managed to accomplish that feat by himself, as witnessed by the fact that Amazon won’t allow me to use the ethnic slurs he used in his book.

You come to this review in order to castigate my review, but you have made no effort to show where I am wrong about my description of Dr. Ruckman’s unchristian bigotry against Italians, Poles, Catholics and women who have just seen the back of their husband’s head blown off. Not only do you defend a this book, but you see nothing wrong in attempting to attack to Catholic Church on the grounds that it was started by “Black Africans.” That’s the text you chose to quote – “Black Africans” – and you apparently saw nothing at all wrong with using that term.

An impartial reader would ask, why is it important to S. Wilder and Dr. Ruckman that the Catholic Church was purportedly founded by “Black Africans”?

One would be more inclined to ask that question after one realized that it is wrong as a matter of fact. Not all Africans are “Black Africans.” Africans from North African are of various lineages, including Semitic, Phoenician, Roman, Greek etc., which do not qualify as “Black Africans.” Augustine and Tertullian, for example, were of Roman lineage, albeit Augustine may have had a Berber mother.

And yet S. Wilder and Dr. Ruckman think that this false information – a trope common to bigots and racists - is important?

And what does it matter? Is Augustine less of an authority because he was allegedly a “Black African.” Why the injection of irrelevant racial information if the person who brings up the irrelevant information is not a racist?

I note that in this iteration you do not even attempt to defend Dr. Ruckman’s comments about “wine-headed w*ps” and “communist p*ll*cks” or his shameless ridicule about Jackie Kennedy. May I take it, therefore, that on some level you concede that Dr. Ruckman’s book does traffic in bigotry?

As for your factual claims, they are complete nonsense from start to finish. The Church of Rome originated in, by golly, Rome. We know this from the letter of St. Paul to the Romans, the letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians and the letter of St. Ignatius to the Romans. There certainly were other churches in the Latin-speaking West, and in the Greek-speaking East, such as Antioch and Alexandria, that acknowledged the primacy of Rome, but that is not surprising, and it is contained in every reliable book of history not written by an obsessive-compulsive, fabricating, pseudo-scholar, which includes Hislop’s The Two Babylons, which is a favorite of people with an unchristian, obsessive compulsive need to reinforce their narrow, bigotry.

The simple truth is that I fairly advised readers of what to expect from Dr. Ruckman’s book, so that they didn’t, like me, expect to read a serious work of criticism, but instead found themselves dumped into a world of “wine-headed w*ps”, “p*ll*cks”, unchristian comments about suffering human beings, and factual misinformation that is cut to suit the bigotry of people who think that kind of thing is hunky-dory.

If you like those kinds of thing, then, of course, go ahead and buy the book.

On the other hand, if you are a fan of human decency, "occupy" the comment section and offer your two cents worth.