I'm reading Shadia Drury's Leo Strauss and the American Right at the moment.

In chapter 3 entitled 'Strauss's German Connection' she briefly tackles Heidegger's ethic of authenticity. On her account this ethic 'bids the individual to be true to himself, rather than living as "they" expect, and silencing the voice within? ' She adds that in 'contrast to the Christian ethic, the existential ethic tells us simply to be true to our unique individuality, to listen to our inner voice, not because it is the voice of God or conscience, but simply because it is ours.'

She then asks: 'But what does it mean to be true to oneself, to be authentic. What is the self to which we should be true?' She responds:

"It does not help matters to tell us that we can live authenticall if we accept who we are and affirmn our destiny in the spirit of Nitetzsche's amor fati--the injunction to love our fate, to affirm our life and choose it energetically. This a strange ethic indeed. Is it not more honourable to resist or rebel against a disgraceful fate, not matter how inexorable? Is that not why we admire Oedipus? He did not say: "it was destined to kill my father and marry my mother, hurrah!"'

His ethical response to nihilism is an active one--the creation of new values. This is the bit that nearly always gets left out. It is a systematic blindness in the political readings of Nietzsche and Heidegger.