Reader J.R. of New York writes,

Greetings Norm,

It seems that you are in some sort of search for truth like many of us
with "less dust in our eyes," and there is a lot of writing about
"reason" in your blog, but today the first thing I saw was a Nietzsche
quote!
Nietzsche, a philosopher who basically opposed rational thought and
science, is directly responsible for laying the emotional (I refuse to
say "intellectual")ground for the rise of Nazism in Germany, and its
eventual philosophical migration to the New World.
I certainly hope that one day we can see these intellectual impostures
for what they truly are, deranged psycho-babble, and we start catching
on to the abuse and misuse of science by postmodernism.

I (Chris) would resist this "postmodern" reading of Nietzsche. Far from opposing science, I would argue that Nietzsche is a naturalistic philosopher, meaning he wants his views to be continuous with the methods of the best science of his day.

Nietzsche observes how much "useful work to be done" there is in the sciences and adds, "I delight in their [scientists] work" (GM III: 23). He remarks, "the ideal scholar in whom the scientific instinct, after thousands of total semi-failures, for once blossoms and blooms to the end, is certainly of the most precious instruments there are" (BGE: 207). Nietzsche has plenty of praise for science in his work, "The Gay Science." For example, "But it [science] might yet be found to be the great dispenser of pain. And then its counterforce [sic] might be found at the same time: its immense capacity for making new galaxies of joy flare up" (GS: 12). Another example, "It is a profound and fundamental good fortune that scientific discoveries stand up under examination and furnish the basis, again and again, for further discoveries" (GS: 46).

If Nietzsche were opposed to science what are we to make of these comments? He does say things that sound like they are anti-scientific, but if you read them closely I think you will see that he is opposing reductionism only, not science tout court. There are plenty of respectable scientists who oppose reductionism. Ernst Mayr, the late great evolutionary biologist, has long argued for the autonomy of Biology from physics and chemistry.

Nietzsche is not a philosopher who denies there is truth. What he denies is that there is a transcendent truth. Likewise, Nietzsche doesn't oppose the use of reason, he opposes reason construed in a Kantian way. Brian Leiter does an excellent job in arguing against the postmodern reading Mr. Rodriguez is offering for Nietzsche's work, Nietzsche on Morality.

Finally, the Nazi use of Nietzsche's work is a gross misappropriation of his work. If he has any culpability at all in the misuse of his work after he died it would be that his style of writing leaves itself too open to misunderstanding. This might be what Mr. Rodriguez means by making a distinction between the emotion and intellectual ground for Nazism. Nietzsche abhorred nationalism. He was very critical of German culture. He advocated being a "Good European." Most importantly Nietzsche denounced anti-semitism in a number of places. It has been the academic consesus for quite some time now that Nietzsche was not a proto-nazi. This idea of an emotional ground for Nazism is extremely vague and would implicate all kinds of people not generally associated with Nazism.