What the fuck was his problem?

He doesn't even have an opinion on a lot of thinkers. He doesn't seem to have read Aquinas, for example.

Nietzsche reserves his most bitter attacks for the people he admires greatly. Also you need to separate Plato's Socrates from the historical person as it's only Plato's Socrates (and by extension Plato) that he heaves scorn on.
He also, regardless of which Socrates we are talking about, did not think that he was a moron. A life denier yes, a moron no.

"Over the gateway into the Christian paradise and its "eternal blessedness" it would, in any event, be more fitting to let the inscription stand "Eternal hate also created me"—provided it’s all right to set a truth over the gateway to a lie! For what is the bliss of that paradise? Perhaps we might have guessed that already, but it is better for it to be expressly described for us by an authority we cannot underestimate in such matters, Thomas Aquinas, the great teacher and saint: "In the kingdom of heaven" he says as gently as a lamb, "the blessed will see the punishment of the damned, so that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss.""

father forgive them, for they know not what they do

real talk: nietzsche actually liked socrates, spinoza, kant and schopenhauer

and he ripped on them especially hard because of it

But he has mostly good things to say about Schopenhauer and I haven't seen him write a single bad thing about Spinoza. The people he ripped on because he respected them would be a list more like Socrates and Jesus.

he basically called spinoza a fucking nerd in beyond good and evil

Nietzsche understood memetics. Even the most critical revoicing is paramount to an endorsement. Only silence is the real rejection.

so what did Nietzsche really believe? everyone seems to say he is misinterpreted somehow

Fuck money get wisdom, save the planet basically

>except Socrates

"In origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. [“monster in face, monster in soul”] But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would not be contradicted by the famous judgment of the physiognomist which sounded so offensive to the friends of Socrates. A foreigner who knew about faces once passed through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum -- that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!"

Socrates' decadence is suggested not only by the admitted wantonness and anarchy of his instincts, but also by the hypertrophy of the logical faculty and that barbed malice which distinguishes him. Nor should we forget those auditory hallucinations which, as "the daimonion of Socrates," have been interpreted religiously. Everything in him is exaggerated, buffo, a caricature; everything is at the same time concealed, ulterior, subterranean. I seek to comprehend what idiosyncrasy begot that Socratic equation of reason, virtue, and happiness: that most bizarre of all equations which, moreover, is opposed to all the instincts of the earlier Greeks.

With Socrates, Greek taste changes in favor of dialectics. What really happened there? Above all, a noble taste is thus vanquished; with dialectics the plebs come to the top. Before Socrates, dialectic manners were repudiated in good society: they were considered bad manners, they were compromising. The young were warned against them. Furthermore, all such presentations of one's reasons were distrusted. Honest things, like honest men, do not carry their reasons in their hands like that. It is indecent to show all five fingers. What must first be proved is worth little. Wherever authority still forms part of good bearing, where one does not give reasons but commands, the dialectician is a kind of buffoon: one laughs at him, one does not take him seriously. Socrates was the buffoon who got himself taken seriously: what really happened there?"

-Twilight of the Idols 1889

Nietzsche was writing for an educated European, with a functioning knowledge of history and philosophy, just before the turn of the 20th century. A third of the people get Nietzsche very wrong because they lack the prerequisite knowledge to make much sense of what he means, another third haven't read any or enough of him and the final third aren't sophisticated enough readers who take him too literally. He isn't a difficult thinker to get most of what he means if you have the right background. As for what he believes just read something like the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on him.

Literally just bee the best urself you can possibly bee

>he has mostly good things to say about Schopenhauer
Obviously that Untimely meditations' essay where he sucks his dick doesn't count

I just went over every mention of Spinoza in BGE and didn't see anything like that. He calls him a naive systematiser like Kant.

Then he must admire Carlyle and Leopardi (for instance) considerably.