Monomania: there is no point in dispersal of force—to take a profane example, Lenin lived and breathed revolution; and, in the end, he got what he wanted, though, of course, in his last words he mouthed, “Hell, Hell,” before the stroke took his speech altogether—he could already see that what he had created had come to nothing, soon Stalin would take power instead, a man even more ruthless than Lenin; so much so even Vladimir Illyich was nervous, he knew Hell would come.
Substantially, obsession is a positive—for the most part, people disperse their forces and so are defeated; and there are many “positive monomanias” aside from that found in Lenin (I just can’t think of any others at the moment). Contemporary political example: if you want restore your nation to racial homogeneity then it is pointless to think about economics—just concentrate on the racial angle, ignore all other considerations (think about Trump, he only had three campaign pledges—wall, drain swamp, lock ’em up; and only one was partially delivered, that’s how hard it is to do anything). For the most part, people talk about pointless asides—cultural policies, economics, foreign policy; and yet these have little to no salience for the point, and make, in fact, very little difference to politics in general (whereas a country’s composition is, in fact, vital to that country’s nature).
Many people are distracted; for example, I see professional nationalists who are really monomaniac party builders—their passion is to build parties and organisations, not accomplish goals. You have to be careful as to what a person’s monomania is really about. Other people, supposedly “normal”, will try to put you off and say it’s unhealthy to be obsessive (but it’s the only way to achieve anything—and they’re envious). My personal obsession is, as described many times before, of course, “the Grail”—not a bad point for monomania, though it took me a while to establish. You might as well be ambitious.