I guess that's the source of our disagreement as I don't agree with that despite living in a free democracy with no intention of leaving such a system (CC: my prior comment w.r.t. Western ideals).

Narcissist, certainly; immoral and corrupted, most likely; but still possibly rational [0], I see no reason they'd be de facto irrational despite how I feel about them. Born autocrats (or born in a line of succession) are a different story, but I'd argue it would even be unlikely for a commoner to ascend to absolute power without starting off as a rational, calculated and intelligent person (tho ofc not impossible, there are obvious cases). Not that there is any guarantee they'll necessarily remain so, seems unlikely after years or decades being surrounded by sycophants.

Feel free to disagree.

0: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/americ...

I'm not seeing any difference if one was born and nurtured into autocracy, or just happened to have it land in their hands. I'd say in either case the pressures are such that the resulting behaviour can not even be named as selfishness. It's just survival, and society needs/development/etc/etc be damned.

Survival breeds sycophants, ...

Shit, why am I reciting stuff from 8th century BC here?