Hmmm... I believe this is a vulgar take on Nietzsche's "aristocratic ideal". Sounds more like Ayn Rand than Nietzsche.
Nietzsche is not talking about what people ARE but about how people BEHAVE.
So his ethical imperative is to educate and empower people and make them change their behavior through a positive existentialist shift of self-identity. This is identical to Zoroastrian ethics about self-identity (I am what I think, I am what I say, I am what I do, I identify with my thoughts, words and deeds). But Nietzsche, while being upset with the stupidities of this world, does not put people down. His philosophy is all about becoming and not about being, remember?
2009/6/11 Special Kain
Dear friends and fellow Zoroastrians,
According to Zarathushtra's philosophy, all people are born equal and should be treated as equal, irrespective of race, gender, age, religious faith or sexual orientation - but also irrespecitve of merit? To me Zoroastrianism seems to be egalitarian in every respect. There is no hierarchical relationship between mind and body. There is no hierarchical relationship between heaven and life down here on this shady planet. But what about Nietzschean elitism?
I have always strongly supported Nietzschean elitism, simply because most people I've met so far were boring, tediously stupid and predictably fake. Most people are semi-consciously vegetating, mistaking random biochemical "flashes" for thinking something through thoroughly (before making a DUMB choice). They like being complicated, because being complicated allegedly makes them interesting or sensitive or important .. or whatever they have tricked themselves into believing about themselves. To see them as equals was hard to swallow. Is it OK to become the most devious Machiavellian the world has ever seen? I guess so. This stupidity, ignorance and fakeness really bothers me. Aren't we supposed to defeat such moronism? Couldn't Nietzschean elitism be the appropriate response?