Again, while I agree with some of your thinking, I'd also invite you to consider that your passion blinds you from seeing any perspective besides your own. It's

Again, while I agree with some of your thinking, I'd also invite you to consider that your passion blinds you from seeing any perspective besides your own. It's not that your ideas are wrong - nor that they're right - it's that you're so unequivocally certain they're right. This level of self-righteousness, which you seem not only to possess but also flaunt, is - as you mention - an excellent antidote to "extreme diplomacy." You don't need to listen to others - after all, it's too diplomatic. You can build an empire all by yourself, the greatest expression of the overman's will to power. But, it is an empire of one. As it happens, we don't live in societies of one. As it happens, there seems to be diplomacy and agreement everywhere. What does that suggest about a long-run optimal strategy for civilizations? Should we really be plunging into internecine war just because "extreme diplomacy" represents a slave morality once again repressing the "passion" of the great man, the overman? No, it likely suggests that unfettered self-righteousness is perhaps short-run optimal, long-run suboptimal. Refusing to listen to others - to be diplomatic - works when you can do everything yourself. And the moment you end up needing something from others, it turns out they've shut you out of the long-term, iterated game. They don't want to play with you anymore. Why? Because you can't empathize, you can't listen, you can't yield. I understand why being diplomatic is threatening. After all, it limits one's self-expression! It challenges the triumph of the individual! The overman! But unless you want to occupy a society of one, that's simply what building a group, a community, or a society requires: diplomacy, politics, persuasion and agreement.