i’m feeling like there’s a misleading comparison being drawn between ‘psychopath’ and ‘egalitarian’ here. a more accurate contrast to begin with would be that of the voluntary egoist and the involuntary egoist. this immediately eliminates the notion of egalitarianism as if it were some genuine, selfless concern for the altruistic well-being of people… as well as the logical extreme at the other end - the psychopath - who would be the opposite of this type. once these two extremes are done away with, you can center the examination on the highest kind of egoist and identify him as an ubermensch.
the reason why ‘psychopath’ can’t qualify here is because an ubermensch would personify both ends of the spectrum - the elitist and egalitarian ethos -, and each would fall under the rubric of his singular egoism. now what makes his actions appear ‘psychopathic’ is the severity of them… most often the immoral and/or amoral violent stuff. but when such action is done in the service of egalitarian aims, it confuses our typical formula; we are unable to imagine such a thing as a noble criminal, for example.
i mention novatore because in him there is a perfect conversion of both ends of the spectrum in a singular being, and as such he is incommunicable to both the elite and the plebian, neither of which are capable of comprehending the ubermensch.
but this kind of evaluation comes from an anarchist’s perspective. the wealthy/bourgeois are already excluded from being ubermenschean simply because they’ve done no work or suffering. without these, no character can be developed… and certainly not that paradoxical singularity of ego that expresses both extremes of the spectrum after the steady evolution of one’s character through periods of incredible struggle. again, the ubermensch must be a personification of a tremendously difficult balance struck between creative and destructive amoral impulses that he values because of their intoxicating effect. for the anarcho-egoist, it is only incidental that his criminal deeds might result in some kind of revolutionary progress, just as it is only incidental that abiding by the law might benefit the power of the oppressors. remember, the anarcho-egoist acts only for himself… and it is only because the intensity, scale and range of the effects of his actions have such excentrifugal forz that we label him ‘criminal’ or ‘hero’ after the fact, depending on which side of the spectrum we’re on. but this kind of ubermensch belongs to neither side and is disgusted by both the parasite bourgeois elite and the plebian underclasses that have been doing dialectical battle since the beginning of time. a novatore just happens to be passing happily through and is incomprehensible to everyone around him.
yeah but you gotta get that delicate synthesis of man’s best and worst qualities in a single person in order to have an ubermensch. trumpf is not an ubermensch, btw. if anything, he’s a testament to what has become of the concept in the 21rst century… one which emulates material wealth as the highest virtue and exalts the ‘bourgeois toads’ as novatore called em. you’ve got to do something more than get rich selling apartment buildings, man.
a better example would be mao or lenin. when what we like to think of as pathological is expressed in terrifying ways for ends that are in direct contradiction to the means. that’s the unique collision that startles our conscience. that’s the grand paradox that materializes in an ubermensch. anything short of that comes out of the homeowner’s edition of the will to power or some watered down shit ayn rand wrote.