You should stop posting about patsocs for your mental health

They would just be some other flavor of fascist. To me, patsocs are just fascists, who due to various coincidences and stars aligning, somehow wind up with a relatively sensible stance on international affairs. My argument for them being a weird brand of fascism is as follows:

1. Patsocs mostly support Russia and China because they correctly see that the West is declining, but they're essentially just jumping ship to the winning side instead of any real internationalist or anti-imperialist principles. From a fascist POV, patsocs are opportunists who would rather hitch their wagon to the winning team than save their volk/race/[insert racist fascist nonsense]. In a certain way, patsocs are like fascists who believe in a Jewish conspiracy to control the world but believe the solution is to join in the Jewish conspiracy as Jewish collaborators. I've notice how patsoc are mostly dismissive of smaller AES countries like Vietnam and Cuba. It's always Russia and China. Why? Because Russia and China are big and strong countries with nukes while Vietnam and Cuba are small and insignificant who need to know their place. In other words, patsocs are nothing more than great country chauvinists.

2. Patsocs don't subscribe to blood-and-soil ideology like neonazis, but they do subscribe to a form of cultural and civilizational chauvinism. While neonazis view things through race and Western liberals view things through the nation-state, patsocs view things through the civilization-state. Patsocs are "civilizationists" if we understand civilizationists to be the civilization-state equivalent of a nationalist. Dugin's Eurasianism is essentially just the civilizational equivalent of Russian ultranationism. The main difference between Russian ultranationalism and Eurasianism is whether you view things from a nation-state perspective or a civilization-state perspective. And since "civilization" itself is a pretty loaded term, from a patsoc's civilizational lens, only people who belong to civilizations are historical actors. Chinese people are historical actors because Chinese people created and are heir to Chinese civilization which sees political expression through the various Chinese dynasties and cultural expression through Chinese art and poetry. Meanwhile, the Dakota people are not historical actors because Dakota people aren't heir to a civilization, and they aren't heirs to civilization because they have nothing more than "tribes." In other words, Chinese people are cultured and civilized while Dakota people are savage and barbaric due to reasons that are largely indistinguishable from a more typical fascist. This is why patsocs are against land back because from their perspective, Indigenous peoples by and large have not truly build a civilization and must be incorporated into civilization (ie assimilate into settler society).

are the majority of patsocs MLs lead astray into social reaction?

Nah, they were just national chauvinists that liked the red aestetic

And without the patsoc grift theyd be good MLs?

For a bit maybe until they said something reactionary like what led to the creation of patsocs

Or are they fash at heart who are doing faux-leftism because it was suggested to them?

i think they just follow whats popular, not every reactionary becomes a fascist like mussolini going from a socialist to a fascist.

Some are like browder and just become wreckers, or like the CPB and just become normal reactionaries like being transphobes.

They're just contrarians.

Don't drive yourself crazy trying to understand them.

They would be NazBols, LaRouchites, and/or accelerationist Atomwaffen satanists who worship North Korea for being homogenous