The tragic urge to self-overcoming has been identified as the only way man and his presence in the world may be ennobled, and this has become the primary element of our suprahumanist ethic. It is what the ancient Greeks called areté, the quest for excellence: the act of living up to one’s full potential.

Since suprahumanism recovers and transfigures the founding myths of Indo-European culture, when it comes to specifying its particular tenets such features as the following might be listed: an eminently aristocratic conception of the human individual; the importance of honour (‘shame’ rather than ‘sin’); a heroic attitude towards life’s challenges; the exaltation and sacralisation of the world, beauty, the body, strength, and health; the rejection of any ‘worlds beyond’; and the inseparability of morality and aesthetics.

Modern materialistic society is based on two principles: that nothing is worse than death, and nothing is better than wealth. In contrast, aristocratic society is based on the principles that there are things worse than death and better than wealth. Dishonour and slavery are worse than death. Honour and freedom are better than wealth. Trading wealth for spiritual goods demonstrates one’s freedom from material necessity. Hence, transforming wealth into the spiritual — into honour, prestige, or beautiful and ‘useless’ things — is an aristocratic virtue.

The term ‘aristocracy’ (areté) is used, throughout this book, in its etymological sense, and should not be confused either with ‘nobility’ — as a social class — or with ‘elite’. An elite is merely a minority holding power within a certain society; an aristocracy distinguishes itself by ability to interpret and express a certain collective will, identity — or sovereignty. An aristocracy incarnates the spirit of an entire community, not particular class interest. Georges Sorel, without lapsing into paradox or oxymoron, speaks of ‘proletarian aristocracy.’

The highest value for a suprahumanist ethics undoubtedly lies not in a form of ‘justice’ whose purpose is essentially interpreted as flattening the social order in the name of equality, but in all that may allow man to surpass himself. Since to consider the implications of life’s basic framework as unjust would be palpably absurd, such classic antitheses as noble vs. base, courageous vs. cowardly, honourable vs. dishonourable, beautiful vs. deformed, sick vs. healthy … come to replace the antitheses operative in a morality based on the concept of sin: good vs. evil, humble vs. vainglorious, submissive vs. proud, weak vs. arrogant, modest vs. boastful…

glory pain

glory death

glory pain

glory death

Fuck yeah animal research. The lesser yields to the greater.