You're just yapping in the rest of your response and not addressing anything I said, so I'll focus on the one actual worthwhile question in your essay

I responded to your previous comment point-by-point and directly. I quoted every single thing you wrote and responded directly. The only possible exceptions came in a later comment where I decided to not help you derail by not answering for claims I haven't made.

It's not my fault if you wish to avoid this discussion. Please just be direct and honest.

Because one flows from the other, brutalized protests created the heat and energy (grassroots organizers, election workers, student testimonials, future campaign door knockers, and an already primed voter base) a political election campaign harnesses that energy and rudimentary organization to bridge the gap between state and grassroots, sanitizing anti-Zionism for dumb, apathetic cracker Americans who didn't care college students got beat, and harnessing the political energy of that movement to win an election, which puts your movement into proximity to state power, which minimizes the risk of further brutalized protests. Materialist political evolution originating with Palestinian resistance and ending in anti-Zionists holding state power in the heart of empire

Ah, the DSA electoralism self-promoting speech pattern.

So, you are saying that those 3 things are directly related? That there could have been action words connecting them to make your point clear and direct? I will read this response in those terms as best I can, looking for those action words.

The brutalized protests "created heat and energy", i.e. on the ground organizing, such as it was, combined with the reaction and media/social media coverage, produced a following reaction of further organizing. Moving directly to election workers, future campaign door knockers, and "already primed voter base" is quite the reach and reads as that DSA electoralism speech pattern I mentioned. Perhaps in retrospect you can assign the latter to the former to some degree, that those who were agitated by the student protests are among the ranks of those who could be activated to do electoral campaign work for Mamdani in particular. Is that what you are trying to say? I think it is trivial and obvious that there were people agitated on Palestine who would later volunteer for the campaign. Is that what we are discussing?

"a political election campaign harnesses that energy and rudimentary organization to bridge the gap between state and grassroots" Wrong. A political election campaign like this harnesses the result of agitation, yes, but it is for bridging the gap between a political candidate and an elected position. The outcome, e.g. vaguely posting about "the state", is not a direct consequence. Is it a bridge? How far does that metaphor go? Are the grassroots now in control of the office? What happens when the socdem backtracks and allies with fascists? I mean we can see right now: unprincipled defenses. It is its own formation with distinct dynamics, it is not a bridge from grassroots to the state, from organization to policy, it is an expression of self-interested electoralism by NYC DSA libs merely couched in those terms, and the moment the reality of that bridge is tested it is subsumed to "the elected". This is a one-way street and it is other interests, particularly capital, that hold most of the cards, with no particular structure to counteract them. If we were discussing a disciplined organization of which Mamdani si merely a representative, we could have a different discussion about bourgeois state power and its manifestations when socialists try to enter it, but we aren't even there.

"sanitizing anti-Zionism for dumb, apathetic cracker Americans who didn't care college students got beat" Yes, sanitizing an already-popular position resulting from a separate primary social movement. What it means to do it "for" apathetic whites is implied to be a good or smart thing? It's just as easily a bad thing. Sanitizing it also strips it of its potential to agitate, it redirects into a political campaign that has no need to follow through and softens it. This is the long-standing function of liberal cooption.

"and harnessing the political energy of that movement to win an election, which puts your movement into proximity to state power, which minimizes the risk of further brutalized protests." oh I didn't think this would get so circular and repetitive, now I barely know what you're talking about again. Sanitizing antizionism is given direct partial credit here for winning the election? Sanitizing it is to make it more palatable, you have its role opposite the reality. The adoption of antizionism is a cynical move to "harness" existing antizionist agitation, but those who are so agitated use the language of antizionism and its commitments, which is considered alienating to potential voters, so it is sanitized. The purpose and function of sanitized antizionism is not to further antizionism, it is to exploit and soften it. The "payoff" is theoretical or simply electoralist self-serving, which is why you are vague about it and are avoiding the various material defenses of Zionism by Mamdani. The other partial credit for winning the election is given to simply "harnessing" those were were already agitated in favor of Palestine, which is just another way of restating that the Mamdani campaign used antizionism as a way to build itself up, to use that topic and agitation to its own advantage. We certainly don't disagree about that, but you seem to think it is worth mentioning in such glowing terms and an expression of power for antizionism and the "movement" rather than simply a cynical cooption in the interests of the bourgeois politician and his hangers-on. Finally, minimizes the risk of further brutalized protests? Now you're giving credit for things that haven't happened even as Mamdani has faltered in his commitments. In a thread about how he's faltering in his commitments. If Mamdani fails on student protests in the future, will you be here to explain his reasoning and why not taking on Columbia et al makes tons of sense even though you think he could do it if he wanted to?

Materialist political evolution originating with Palestinian resistance and ending in anti-Zionists holding state power in the heart of empire

Materialist political evolution... I'm not sure how to even discuss that. Was it materialist? I think it's just a narrative of topics that relate to one another, but it's not much of an analysis, and not particularly materialist. It still just feels like jargon is being thrown around to sound socialist. A materialist analysis would need to discuss more brass tacks, things like how the superstructure was impacted by the base in this situation. The Palestinian resistance would again return to our focus, because their direct military opposition placed the entity in desperate conditions, transforming the false narrative of reluctant impervious domineers to the true narrative of precarious genocidal settlers. The exodus of Zionists from Israel, the economic impacts, the contradictions in needing to then send yet more aid to Israel...

Anyways, "anti-Zionists holding state power" again has no such meaning if their antizionism is opportunist. Again. Is this the third or fourth time I've said this?

You can call Mandani an opportunist all you like, but he's not going to run the Adam's playbook if college protests ever reignite

I mean they don't need to be identical to have the same impact. Is Tisch still going to be there? Is she going to send the cops? Will you be the Mamdani explainer if the students are beaten by the cops? He can't just take them on, right?

AND HERE YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST the further development of that process.

What did I argue against, specifically? Quote me.

Palestinian resistance members cannot be elected in the United States; socdems like Mamdani who FURTHER normalize anti-Zionism, can. Hence why those socdems have a structural utility in advancing anti-zionism IN THE UNITED STATES

Now it's "structural utility" again, whatever that vague nonsense means. And again you refer to Mamdani as normalizing antizionism, which appears to mean that he is elected and can say some antizionist things? Agian back to the Dem cooption playbook, are we meant to make excuses for Obama because he "evolved" on gay marriage? We are meant to give him this much credit? Uh-oh, I mentioned credit again! I am again simply describing your tendency to give it to Mamdani, unasked, in defense of opportunism.

All of a sudden you remember the concepts of process and progress

I have not said anything in contradiction of these concepts or neglected them. You're just saying things again. Things that maybe sound good to you? They aren't principled or in alignment with what has been said.