>I mean p-zombies in the sense they're actually meant, not as a derogatory.
Yes, as they are actually meant. Most people are just autonomous biological machines, especially non-Whites. Jews are literal golems, the majority of them not only lack the Self entirely, but also the animic singular soul inherent to beastmen and other flora and fauna of this world. And it's nothing derogatory, just as calling a computer a machine is not. There are some exceptions of course, but it's a generic state for most.
>That's on Nietzsche, not me.
Why do you keep quoting him then? Are you trying to use those quotes out of context so his philosophy is rejected entirely? As I have already stated, some of his ideas are good, some are not, and many didn't get developed properly. It's not black and White so I don't really see what are you trying to do here. Other authors have picked up where Nietzsche has left, all over the political and philosophical spectrum. And his critiques can be used selectively, if one understands the overall context of his works. He would likely criticize postmodernists, modern existentialists and especially Marxists even more than he did Christians, because it took them less time to spawn the last man and mediocrity, crab mentality etc. as a way of life than it did for Christianity to accomplish the same. Although Christianity was just a stage leading to Marxism, modernism and similar views, just as chrysalis turns into a butterfly. They are part of the same Talmudic dialectics, regardless of their superficial differences.
>A beaver abides by ('utilizes') laws of physics in building his dam
No animal utilizes laws of physics to do something that it was not naturally endowed to do, except for 'humans'. Man was never meant to fly, dive deep underwater for a long time, move hundreds of times faster than walking, survive extreme conditions or go to space. Even if you somehow argue that it's just another degree of magnitude, the margin is wide enough to separate Man from all other living things on earth.
>Also, I doubt that humans will ever be able to change unchanging and universal variables that govern everything in the Universe
Those variables are upheld by the very inertia that keeps this universe together so yes, it seems extremely unlikely, at least without relying on external sources. But there might be other variables that might achieve the similar effect...
>It's a nested hierarchy. If you can recognize that mammals all belong to the class, it's not hard to see that a nigger and a White man belong to the same category as 'human'
Yes, as I have explained in that post. Using an overly broad class defined by the significantly lower common denominator can neuro-linguistically imprint an egalitarian context even if it was not strictly meant as such. That's why such terms, despite not being strictly incorrect, should be avoided. Part of the reason why it's so hard to deprogram people from Jewish mind-toxins today is their manipulation of language to create certain neuro-linguistic imprints since early age. Their control is far more advanced and insidious than mere control of media and blackmail/bribery of politicians.
>In fact human groups are far more similar than these two dog breeds in morphology alone
Given the level of mental development and other traits, morphology alone does not suffice. A dog behaves like most other dogs regardless of how different they look, some human groups are not like that. Differences among 'human' races are of essential nature, because the wide margin of 'human' quantitative container/class allows for it. For most other living things on earth it's too narrow to permit manifestation of different archetypal or individual essences, meaning that the quantitative Form (with smaller varieties) will correspond to the qualitative essence. This essence being based on the highest common factor(s), that defines the concentrated racial soul and fine tunes the physical form.
>Why would there be an eternal self-existent Form of 'dog'?
Your monitor is likely made with a panel containing a certain number of pixel dots. Those dots create the picture which you see. Out of all possible configurations, some of them are pictures of dogs. Extrapolate that to the dynamic, 3-dimensional world and you get the idea.
>There are many things which could exist that don't.
In this particular phenomenal configuration. If you don't see a picture of a dog on your monitor, does it mean that pictures of dogs don't exist?