First 20 minutes: Radio Islam (South Africa) interviews Kevin on whether Trump will capitulate. (Note: This interview was recorded last week, before Israel assassinated Iran’s leading physicist, Professor Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.)
Final 40 minutes: Jonathan Revusky is the author of the best red-pill article ever, “Battling the Matrix and Freeing Oneself from the Roger Rabbit Mental World,” as well as a masterpiece of a mission statement for HeresyCentral.com: “Faith, Reason, Fanaticism, and the Deeper Meaning of “The Donald.” So what’s Jon’s take on COVID? Part of the red-pilled community thinks it’s over-hyped if not a complete hoax. Another group thinks it’s a bioweapon. A third (represented by Israel Shamir among others) says we should focus on opposing lockdowns, resets, and other Orwellian measures. A whole lot of others say “some or all of the above” or are just confused. Can Jonathan Revusky help sort this out? Listen and see.
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?
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.
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:
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…
Wow, to what do I owe this honor?
Well, I take this attention as a sign that I must be doing something right!
Yeah, so people were demolishing me in debate continually. Or, I guess they were. I have to admit that I can’t remember any of it it. Maybe it all happened when I was blotto drunk so that’s why I can’t remember.
But, luckily, due to the programming prowess of our host here, Ron Unz, we have a complete electronic record of all these exchanges. So, just to help me out with my failing memory, utu, could you provide me the links to some cases where you demolished my arguments. Or… I dunno… at least some case of your scoring a clear debating point against me?
Or Ron Unz scoring a debating point against me?
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?
I liked this one.
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:
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.
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.
Utu, you shithead, what is meant by scoring a debating point against somebody is not simply claiming that the person is wrong. It is when you demonstrate problems in the person’s argument, either factually or logically.
When did you ever do that?
For example, something like this: https://www.unz.com/ldinh/america-as-religion/?showcomments#comment-3143281 which was a total demolition of Unz’s BS.
When did you or anybody else ever do something similar to me?
Daniel, you seem to be missing the key point here.
We are at a stage in history where any person who has any moral awareness or conscience at all is bound to find himself defending Muslims quite regularly. This is not because one has any particular affinity for Muslims per se. It is simply because Muslims are currently on the receiving end of a defamation campaign of a scale that is absolutely mind-boggling, and any honest, moral person would have to denounce this. We have the longstanding narrative of Muslims as terrorists constantly getting recycled, and a few years back, they really got into this Muslims as rapists defamation campaign.
I can tell you that if any other group of people were being subjected to a similar slander campaign, I would speak up about the situation — if it was Buddhists, or Hindus, or Christians for that matter.
But the fact is that all this vicious campaign is pretty much completely directed against Arabs and Muslims more generally. Utu’s idea that I am defending people falsely accused of being terrorists and rapists and head choppers and pussy grabbers and all the rest of that vicious crap, simply because I am some sort of sympathizer with Muslims specifically — this is actually quite preposterous. To buy into such nonsense is to miss the point completely.
It is nonsense, but one thing it does tell you is the overall faction that Utu is part of. Apparently in Israel, to call somebody an “Arab-lover” is like, in certain American reactionary cicles, calling somebody a “nigger-lover”. When utu criticizes me on the (false) grounds that I havoe some special love for Muslims over anybody else, it does reflect that sort of right-wing Zionist mind-set. I guess it really does provide an insight into who/what Utu really is about, or who he works for.
As for the notion that I hate Christians, it is beyond me what your basis for saying something like that could be. If (as I actually know to be the case) there is no basis for that, you really should refrain from saying it.
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.