Could anyone suggest studies of the Revolution that diverge from his theory that the intelligentsia are chiefly to blame for the atrocities of this period?

Most histories written within the past decade or two. Off the top of my head, such introductory works on the Revolution would include those by Rex Wade, Orlando Figes and James White. None are particularly 'revisionist' (see below) but all situate the Revolution against a background of increasing class strife and repeated political failures. In terms of directly (if not always explicitly) engaging with Pipes' thesis, Shelia Fitzpatrick and Alexander Rabinowitch are very strong on tracing the social and economic background of the various revolutionary parties. In particular, by establishing the degree to which the Bolsheviks were a mass party, they demolish the concept of a small tight-knit cabal of intellectuals suddenly seizing power.

There's value in Pipes but today it's unsustainable to argue (as he did in The Russian Revolution) that "nothing inexorably pushed [Russia] towards revolution, except the presence of an unusually large and fanatical body of professional revolutionaries. It was their well-organised agitational campaigns in 1917 that transformed a local fire, the mutiny of Petrograd’s military garrison, into a nationwide conflagration." That's just flatly contradicted by most of the works above.

Please, no Revisionist shit, haha. (Fuck Stalin)

Not entirely sure what you mean by that, unless you're using it in the Marxist-Leninist sense. 'Revisionism' is part and parcel of writing history, every generation challenges the orthodoxies of its predecessors. This is particularly true of the historiography around 1917 and the USSR, where the Cold War produced a particularly sharp and bitter division between the 'traditionalists' (eg Pipes) and the 'revisionists' (eg Fitzpatrick). The latter certainly do/did not condone or glorify Stalin.

Richard Pipes is pretty polarizing as far as historians go, so I would take a lot of what he says with a grain of salt. For a good perspective on 20 th century violence see Charles Maier's article on the topic.

"First political terrorist organization in history" is questionable. Off hand, I'd put the Hashashin of the 11th Century in the political terrorist category, if we categorize their methods of assassination according to modern definitions of terrorist actions. I can't conclusively speak for what the first organization would be. This seems like a subjective opinion on Pipes' part.