When virtue is related to sociobiologically defined human nature then Friedrich Nietzsche's project of affirming the immoralist is not valid. By “conforming” to the real structure of human nature one is not mediocre, one is a natural man conforming to what human beings actually are. The affirmation of immoralism by Nietzsche was mainly his attempt to affirm superior men who stand out from the “herd,” but this is best done by way of evolution, bio-social evolution, and not by moving outside the bonds of human nature, not by revolution, but by Ordered Evolution---this relates best to a revitalized conservatism and not anarchy or aristocratic radicalism.
As the intellectual father of modern libertarianism, anarchism, and nihilism (in spite of Nietzsche), Nietzsche under-emphasized the biological foundation of much of social behavior, even though he was against the denaturalization of morality and culture by religion. Perhaps Nietzsche, who was brilliant but all too human, could not avoid being overly defensive due to his own real outsiderhood (he had to publish his own outstanding work which virtually no one read), especially in comparison to the wildly popular Wagner, who became his bitter rival.
We certainly do need superior men and women to create high culture and also to help us survive into the future, but this is not best done by condemning the rest of humanity. We find superior men and women by identifying social from antisocial genius, which can be accomplished, for example, when psychometric testing is exhumed from political correctness. Let's not confound criminal geniuses with socially positive geniuses. Without the group and group selection, superior individuals don't contribute for long, or enhance society, or help us evolve.