Yet, is not Altruism of an informative placative methodology? A means of passive influence? Misdirection?
Even though, I cannot disagree with you. The "Greater Good" has had quite a broad spectrum of manifestation.

To listen to the leftists you’d think ONLY the United States had blood on its hands. ALL nations do. Read about the Feudal history of Japan. If someone painted an artist impression of it, it’d be Mt. Fuji with rivers of blood flowing down.

No, it's not. Saying "I know what is best for you, and I am doing this for your own good." can be good if done by a parent to a young child.

If it is done a maternalistic/paternalistic government looter, then self-interest at the expense of others can be done under the premise of "I know what is best for you". Sometimes, however, self-interest at the expense of others self-interest is done without any illusion of good intentions. Do you think that Maduro cares at all for good intentions? Even if his government is officially communist, he and other dictators couldn't care less about altruism, unless it helps them get to a convenient end.

Yep, this right here. Upthread, we talked about Khan not being altruistic. You know why? Because we are remembering him at a time when he already had amassed or was born with the power to do whatever he wanted to do. He didn't have to convince anyone of anything. However, I am not sure that's always the case. Perhaps when he was a young lad, he had to build his army, like many rulers do, and I bet that activity was rife with altruistic persuasion.

But with Hitler (just as an example) he had to convince others that tattling on your Jewish neighbors was a GOOD thing to do. THAT is how "altruism" happens. "Everybody - including you - will be better off if you let us know what those lousy Jews are up to."

I don't disagree with the definition, only the application.

With regard to Hitler, while one can argue that Hitler was "elected" by the German people according to his soaring rhetoric, history actually shows that he gained power because he controlled the ballot boxes - literally. His brown shirts falsified ballots and intimidated voters on a grand scale. (The Dominion voting machines are similar, they just trade intimidation for outright manipulation.)

Stalin was never elected. He took over when Lenin keeled over dead AFTER the Bolsheviks instituted a coup by taking over key military institutions. Then they started shipping dissenters off to the Gulags. While he made patronizing speeches during WW II, there were no elections from 1918 onward.

Mao Zedong was on the victorious side of a bloody civil war in post-WW II China. And following the war in which the US failed to support Chiang Kai-Shek and the Nationalists, Mao then instituted a political purge that even conservative estimates place at at least 50 million of his own people. And they had no elective choice either then or now.

I guess I differentiate because you first have to persuade people to act against their own interest BEFORE you take over the government by force and then use that tyranny. It's always easy to "persuade" others after you already have control.