Jonathan Revusky, a shooting star here a few years back, soon emerged as a bullying, foul mouthed, verbose blowhard. He eventually alienated even his supporters. His mission is to demonstrate that he’s the smartest person in the room, and he attacks anyone who dares to question in the slightest his pontificating about … well, whatever he wants to obsess on at the time.

Only a masochist would tune into this one.

The first twenty minutes is nothing you wouldn’t get from the mainstream media and is very skippable. Revulsky is always interesting, though his section is more about AIDS than COVID.

” a bullying, foul mouthed, verbose blowhard. He eventually alienated even his supporters. His mission is to demonstrate that he’s the smartest person in the room, and he attacks anyone who dares to question in the slightest his pontificating about … well, whatever he wants to obsess on at the time.”

That could be just about anyone on the Internet. Can you be more specific?

“Troll”?

Check out his last article here. It was over 4,000 words that could have been halved and still included the apology for a threatened doxxing of a commenter that was required by Mr. Unz. Mr. Revusky’s subsequent (and typical) engagement with the other commenters will further confirm what I’ve said. For example:

“[Ron Unz] does not fully understand the difference between storytelling and real facts. Of course, that also applies to the majority of the contributors and participants on this website.”

See my #4.

If you want more, Mr. Revusky’s articles can be found using the AUTHORS tool beneath the masthead.

Lousy programme!

Come on, guys. It’s a total joke. Know any dead? Anyone who knows anyone? Yes, it’s true some now say they know someone etc, but their tests will give just about anyone a positive. It’s an obvious joke, and extremely frightening. Surely you guys have read 1984/ Brave New World?

My father died of Covid last May. He was in late stage Alzheimer’s and weakening, but covid was the cause of death according to the doctors.

Revusky has psychological problems but he can write very well and argue his cases more intelligently than most in the sphere of conspiratology. He just can’t defend them when challenged and turns nasty. But he is genuine and acts in a good faith. His soft spot for Muslims brought him to Barrett who is a semi-intelligent piece of trash.

Having just reread his last article and skimmed a portion of the comments, that’s an important distinction about Mr. Revusky’s writing on this website. After pouring so much time and energy into an article, he thinks it profound and won’t abide anything but fawning agreement. As you said (#521) to him then, after being inevitably insulted:

And definitively [Ron Unz] should not engage in personal communication with you. Nobody should.

Perhaps what really motivates him are desires for attention and conflict, satisfied as he alienates people in the comment threads beneath his lightning rod articles. Isn’t what you call “conspiratology” the ideal career for Mr. Revusky, apparently a man of independent means, too?

So, your whole participation here is merely to cheaply character assassinate Revusky.

That tells me all I need to know about you.

Utu, you are a narcissistic A-hole and an intellectually dishonest person.

It’s clear to me you are the one with psychological problems…

Yes, and his dying regret was that he wished he’d had a boy.

What kind of stupid comment is that?

Oh, so that’s a sheriff’s star.

I also hadn’t realized that pointing out — with his own words — the shortcomings of a public author qualified as “character assassination.”

What in my assessment is incorrect?

Or anybody…

I liked this one.

https://www.unz.com/article/the-muslim-rape-army-is-coming-to-getcha/?showcomments#comment-1961902

If one managed to go through the massive length of the article one may think or rather hope that article is some kind of a parody or a hoax trying, though ineptly, to make fun of pseudo-scientific seriousness and self-importance when applied to something trivial and inconsequential. But then you get comments form Revusky and you realize it was not a parody or a joke. No, it was all sincere. Then you end up with the same feeling of embarrassment people got when watching Florence Foster Jenkins sing. It was not about how bad she was but how unaware she was.

People are attracted to a spectacle. Think about Jerry Springer show. Revusky creates the spectacle. He gets personal. His arguments never stop. He never gives an inch. He restarts conversations with those he swore not to ever talk to again. It will never end. But there were few useful side-threads that were civil and constructive left unmolested by Revusky.

He is smart, very articulate and can write very well. He constructs arguments with solidity of mathematical argument. And this is his fatal flaw. Because all premises and data he has access to are fuzzy so conclusions must be fuzzy and probabilistic. But he does not see it that way and thus he gets very upset when it is pointed out to him that instead “this is so” all he is allowed to state is “this is maybe so.”

He became convinced that he could identify crisis actors not realizing that he is not really qualified as he does not have as most people do not have many experiences seeing people in grief and thus he does not know how people behave and that they do not necessarily suppose to behave as we have seen in countless scenes of grief in movies, sitcoms and soaps. I tried to point this out to him:

https://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-911-betty-ong-and-the-mystery-of-black-betty/?showcomments#comment-2298325
Basically what Revusky is telling us is that Christine Leinonen did not act as actresses he saw in the movies and soaps on TV. He claims that Christine Leinonen acted artificially unlike the actresses on TV.

To which he called me a schmuck and shit eater. The latter is his favorite adjective. So there is an immediate escalation into the infinitude from which there is no recovery and return to the conversation.

I’m sorry to hear your father died.
But do look into some of the large amount of evidence including doctor testimonials stating the many ways they can make just about ANY death a ‘covid’ death. I haven’t got any links handy, but have seen plenty. For a big example, the tests can pick up the slightest trace of CORONA–and there arie many, many strains of this common flu virus–and if one is found, boom!, you’ve got an instant ‘covid’ death. Doctors everywhere are required to put this on the death certificate, and likely are given monetary incentives to do so, as in, if you produce a certain number of ‘covid’ deaths you’ll get a nice bonus.
The cynicism and corruption are widespread.

Welcome back, Revusky! The comments section hasn’t been the same without you.
You seem so mild-mannered on the radio–it’s the first time I’ve had the honor of hearing your voice. But here in ‘Comments’, you’re still your same old lunatic bulldog. I suppose it’s like that for many of the most rabid commenters. They’re in real life soft spoken nerdy types.
ps What a fucking bizarre comment!

‘His soft spot for Muslims brought him to Barrett who is a semi-intelligent piece of trash.’

I can probably agree about Revusky as he strikes me as Typical Jew, so pretend Muslim lover, real Christian hater (I can surmise).
Your take on Kevin Barrett strikes me as unfair. I enjoy many of his interviews and he seems very likable with a refreshing point of view, being a white American muslim.

I’m sorry to hear your father died. But do look into some of the large amount of evidence including doctor testimonials stating the many ways they can make just about ANY death a ‘covid’ death.

Thank you. I’m not sold on the pandemic, but I don’t doubt that Covid could be a threat to the elderly. Pneumonia or the flu could have also caused my father’s death late in his life, which has been the case with several other elderly relatives over the years. Everyone else that I know (4 others) who have tested positive have had mild or no symptoms, but they were all under 50.

Yes, it was a good argument but why did it take you 1,100 words to state it. Clearly you are more into rhetoric and the onanistic pleasure of hearing yourself than forwarding the discourse and establishing the facts. The fact in that matter that was to be established was whether the photograph was fake or not which neither you nor Ron Unz could establish for not being experts. Ron Unz stated so while you being deaf because of your chutzpah continued with you rhetorical rant as if you knew that the photograph was fake which clearly you could not know.

Fair comments, all, much appreciated. No offense about Chrtistians remark, I apologize. I do agree with all you say about Muslims. Your comments were fair, thanks again.