Nietzsche was extremely interested in the entire cannon of Western philosophy. He analysis of Socrates as a "decadent type" is crucial to his positions. All of Nietzsche's work was a debate around the ongoing questions of the philosophy, art, religion and so-forth of both Western and world civilizations (he was interested Buddhism for example - calling decadent but still appreciating it more than Christianity).
But the tendencies calling themselves "individualist" like Stirner, say, evoked only contempt in him (and basically little mention).
I mean that he was an individualist as a person, not that he had some individualism theory. Actually he said that he hadn't a methodology. He considered methods a lack of honesty (or something like that). Calling himself a psycologist instead of philosopher is part of that.
I don't think he had any preference for political systems, except, like you said, as a way to create interesting individuals.
Nietzsche was (arguably) a strong individual who formulated his positions without being beholden to any previous approach but he certainly form in his positions in the context of previous approaches (and had contempt for those who claimed to create ideas out of thin air - see his comments on British Empiricists).
Indeed, Nietzsche didn't even "believe in thinking for yourself" in the sense that he didn't think that random people should necessarily be encourage to do so.
While I, as I've said, I think no one can really embrace all of Nietzsche, I'm fond enough of some of him to want to point out how he denounced all those types that would love to evoke his name - the precursors of the NAZIs, anarchists and all philosophies glorifying "the individual" and so-forth. Not the Nietzsche would have embrace my own ideas but then again, I don't carry his "banner".
and had contempt for those who claimed to create ideas out of thin air - see his comments on British Empiricists
Do you remember where those comments are? Never heard of them.
While I, as I've said, I think no one can really embrace all of Nietzsche
Indeed. He seems more of a critic than a creator, still he had many original ideas, maybe because he didn't feel the need to create a coherent system, that would have forced him to discard some.
he denounced all those types that would love to evoke his name - the precursors of the NAZIs, anarchists and all philosophies glorifying "the individual" and so-forth
Were they sincerely individualists? First image that comes to mind when mentioning nazis is a bunch of uniformed people marching in perfect formation.
Regarding Nietzsche and the Empiricists, Reddit refreshed my memory of readings from times past:
"They are no philosophical race, these Englishmen: Bacon signifies an attack on the philosophical spirit; Hobbes, Hume, and Locke a debasement and lowering of the value of the concept of “philosophy” for more than a century. It was against Hume that Kant arose, and rose; it was Locke of whom Schelling said, understandably, “je méprise Locke” [I despise Locke]; in their fight against the English-mechanistic doltification of the world, Hegel and Schopenhauer were of one mind (with Goethe)—these two hostile brother geniuses in philosophy who strove apart toward opposite poles of the German spirit and in the process wronged each other as only brothers wrong each other."
He argues against empiricism in the genealogy of morals, beyond good and evil, and some of what he wrote on history.
He does so because they fail to understand that language is something historical that is fought over and changes over time. Thus his aphorism that 'only that which has no history can be defined.'
But the tendencies calling themselves "individualist" like Stirner, say, evoked only contempt in him (and basically little mention).