I see no reason why the psychopath cannot be egalitarian. Paradoxically, due to his supremely narcissistic ways, I believe he is less apt to succumb to the fallacies that many neurotypicals employ when determining who is worthy of unequal and society-enforced privilege over another. Lest the reader misunderstand me, I do not believe that the psychopath loses sleep over the inequalities of privilege given that he remains on top in his own way.
My reasoning is as such: given that the psychopath is intensely narcissistic, others tend to have no worth relative to the psychopath. Thus, all are equally worthless in the eyes of the psychopath except for insofar as they have worth to the psychopath directly. If all are equally without worth, then why would the psychopath care who has privilege over another? He is equal opportunity with his disdain. Therefore, there is no reason for the psychopath to devalue one group over another for they are all already devalued as far as possible. Thus, it may follow that the psychopath is egalitarian by default.
I’ve seen some antisocials, including myself, that do not care for the tactics employed by those that are selective with their crusades for equal rights. Many antisocials are opposed to feminism, for instance. Why? I believe this also taps into the idea of gamesmanship. If all are equally devalued and the psychopath wants a challenge, then any attempts to subvert an equal playing field are considered in poor taste. Many feminists do not care about the kink-friendly or queer. Therefore there exists an unequal playing field with their actions and it follows that the psychopath that craves challenge in his own realm is put off by those that wish to disproportionately assign difficulty to those groups they are opposed to.
I do not wish to imply that such logic applies to all psychopaths or otherwise antisocial. There, undoubtedly, is required a certain level of intelligence and education for such ideas to take root. However, I am firmly convinced that the psychopath need not be opposed to egalitarianism and that he is more likely to gravitate toward it than most. When everyone is dirt, why would you care who resides on the hill and who on the valley?