What the World is Really Like

History, like literature allows us to live out imaginatively, any number of possible moral scenerios... Yet; we are only allowed one cultural perspective upon which to judge all scenes, and while Nietzsche could mumble about infinite regeneration, or what ever was his term, this is not possible, and that is the reason his characters were so sterile, and so sticklike... We are all the products of our cultures and all try to contribute to our cultures, but no one can step away to judge and observe their own culture objectively... The idea of the individual is the greatest failure of philosophy... The practical meaning of individual when applied to bricks is exactly opposite of individual when applied to people... An individual brick is like any other, and identical... It is presumed that the individual is unique, and unlike every other... The meaning behind the term individual is its result, that communities have been broken, and can offer no defense of their members so that the earth is stolen even from the unborn by those willing to surrender their individuality to combine against all individuals and individualism... Nietzsche's Superman was willing to stand alone and outside of all moral boundries to make slaves of his fellow human beings... Upon what moral information can anyone make such a choice??? It is a deep pathology that makes one man turn others into beasts of burden because to will to do so justifies the action... The will to dominate humanity is the making of history, but it is the source of all true tragedy...Only the metaphysics of man created can justify such horrors as history reveals... When we think of human kind growing out of all life, and finally out of the branch of humanity, there is simply no justification from people ruling or exploiting people... It is obvious now that to avoid being ruled we must rule... The ideal is every person ruling their own behavior, and this is what makes people moral.

You have said nothing here that represents Nietzsche at all accurately. He is widely misunderstood. Read Hatab, Kaufmann and Julian Young if you wish to get past the misrepresentations of Nietzsche by Hiedegger and Crane.
The Eternal Recurrence (not infinite regeneration) is not to be taken literally--Hatab does but only to make a rhetorical point.

I do know that Nietzsche did not get people, or understand relationships... He understood some things in Gross... He had some valuable insights on human behavior and motivation... His world was stark because there was so little color in it... For all his insight there was much he missed...

Indeed, he had so much insight into human behavior and motivation that Freud is said to have said that Nietzsche knew himself better than any other man who had ever lived [My source's hyperboly not mine]. Nevertheless, many have argued that Freud failed to give credit for many insights taken from Nietzsche. Some have even accused Freud of plagerism in this regard.

Freud did read a lot of Nietzsche, but from my library of Freud which is pretty extensive, he does not give a lot of credit to Nietzsche... He shares with Nietzsche and others such as Baudelaire, a rejection of rationalism as a guide of human behavior... He does not reject it entirely... Let me offer some words from Thomas Mann on Freud:

NIetzsche's quarrel with the socratic hostilityto instinct gratified our prophets of the unconscious, even while they feel that his psychological method debars him from true understanding of the myth and from finding his way about in the "holy twilight of primeval time"; but through NIetzsche down to our own time there flows the nineteenth century stream of anti-rationalistic tendency--- in some cases indeed, not so much through him as over and beyond him. . .
Of course the prophets of the unconscious refers to Freud in part..

And Again: "We may," says Freud, "emphasize as often as we like the fact that the intellect is powerless compared with the impulse in human life ---we shall be right. But after all there is something peculiar about this weakness, the voice of intellect is low, but it rests not until it gets a hearing. In the end, after countless repulses, it gets one after all. "

I see that as a difference between Freud, and Nietzsche who rejected the Apollonian in art for the Dionysian out right; and in his own words "With what high hopes must we greet the auspicious signs... in our own era, namely the gradual reawakening of the Dionysian spirit! . . . I refer to German Music, in its mighty course from Back to Beethovan, and from Beethovan to Wagner."
It should be remembered that Dionysus was the god of frenzy and revelry in drama while Apollo was the god of measure and form in poetry...

We constantly compare our wish or expectations or personal wants with reality, when the reality falls short of our wish/expectations or personal wants, we tend to feel sad. The bitter truth is that, reality is not our wish or expectations or personal wants, and it can not and is impossible to always meet our subjective expectations. We can either demand that the reality must meet our personal wish and constantly feel sad when the reality doesn't fall short of our wish or we can accept the fact that reality is not our wish and it can't always meet our wishes. When we accept this fact, we are able to feel peaceful when the reality doesn't meet our personal wants.