Why the dots?

you might probably say that a certain gene of George W controls all the planet.

I may be mistaken, but this "controls" seems to imply a mistaken idea of what genes do -- the simplistic but widespread idea of genetic determination. But genes don't miraculously 'control' anything, they just have an effect under certain circumstances (circumstances which include both other genes and 'environmental factors'). No gene determines foot size, for example -- with the right diet, you grow much larger (not to mention having zero-sized feet if you cut off your leg in an accident).

it makes much more sense to talk a group of genes ... cooperating in competition against other group of genes

That makes sense only if the occurence of competing variants of the various genes in the group are correlated. There may be some correlation between some gene variants due to compatibilites, but not for the entire genome [varation] of most sexually reproducing species, or even any groups of genes you pick in their genome.

I note though that with Dawkins's original loose definition of 'gene', higher-level selection is a non-issue: what we'd view as separate genes with strongly correlated variants (based on the now accepted geneticist definition of gene) would be one gene in his treatment in those 20-30-years-old books.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}