Patrick, before you go on pretending to have some understanding of ponerology, you'd better actually read the book. Your post above just shows that you have no understanding of the words you're feebly attempting to manipulate. In fact, by your descriptions, the Whites fit the definition of a primary ponerogenic union, that is, one that has slimmer chances of ever achieving "pathocratic" status than a secondary ponerogenic union. If you're going to pretend to have control over the ideas presented in ponerology, best to actually read the work, rather than to arrogantly fumble about in the dark in an effort to dupe others into thinking you know what you're talking about.PatrickSMcNally said:Not especially. A problem with using such a broadly generic term as "pathocrat" is that it applies so widely that in practice some other ideological criterion always takes its place. The Whites were certainly more "pathocratic" than other parties to the civil war, that's one of the reasons they lost. General Kornilov announced very early on that "We must save Russia ... even if we have to shed the blood of three-fourths of all the Russians!" They don't come much more "pathocratic" than that.Laura said:there is a powerful LOT of motive on the side of pathocrats to have people conclude what is presented in that book.