Pondering the right of might

I
Following on from my mention the other day of Might is Right (MIR), I was wondering what it all implied. The author seems to be saying that it is all very well that a proportion of the population is governed by leaders. But, and this is crucial, only if these leaders are the strong. That is, the warriors, the best and brightest. The brave and ruthless, those who pursue power, gold and women, who conquer.
We all know that we are not "ruled" by the best and brightest. As Celente says, they couldn't lead me across the street. And they are cowards. We haven't had a leader who's actually faced the heat of battle since Eisenhower and Churchill.
But these venal people may be the most ruthless, in a sociopathic sense. They use others, they use the power of religion and symbols and secret networks to get what they want. And what they want is everyone else dead, or controlled.
If you can't see the invisible hand, but only the invisible boot, then this is how you would think. That is, seeing the world in a zero sum way: if I take some pie, that's less for someone else.
Another word for ruthless yet cowardly people is bullies. Why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied?
II
Plato said: "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Now, I'm pretty suspicious of Plato, being as he was the one to come up with the idea of the philosopher king in the first place. But is he right here? I think he may have it backwards. Politics is a loathsome beast, and it mainly means sophistry and deceit - lies. It would strike many thinking people that one of the penalties for engaging in politics is that you end up being governed by your superiors. That is to say, democracy is a sham and a lie, as stated in MIR.
III
I wonder how this relates to women? They go for status, for sure, but what about when the elites are the weak and venal?
There's something interesting going on here. Because the elites, although they dominate in a sense, tend to inbreed and fuck themselves up, eventually. Then there's the fact that the men most likely to mate these days are convicts, serial killers and criminals. Especially with the welfare state as it is, so there's no need for beta males at all.
Perhaps the self-regulating thing, then. We're in a cycle. The beta male genes will be weeded out, so we'll have a planet of alphas who start to turn the world into what it ought to be, which is a world of conflict and the truest type of meritocracy - that is rising or falling by your true merits.