So I've always been fascinated by how reactionaries pick a "strong man" figure who is generally regarded as a clown by most of society. Hitler's the most obvious example (not blond, not Aryan, short, dumb mustache), but Trump of course is another one. I love how Ben Garrison is constantly horny on main for the guy and draws him as a muscular superhero when in fact he's a complete slob and borderline illiterate.

I always figured there was some psychological projection at play since that's just how conservative's minds function on a basic level. Everything is projection. Every accusation is a confession. However, I've never quite been able to articulate it into words or properly wrap my mind around it.

It took a while, but I managed to get ChatGPT to articulate what I've been trying to put into words for a long time and I thought you comrades might be interested. Here's a link to the full conversation.

Q: Yes, I think we are getting closer here. Let's go further - in what ways would psychological projection play a role in why they consistently seem to pick leaders that are the opposite of their rhetoric? not "strong men" and "protectors" but perceived by non-reactionaries as "clowns" and "buffoons" ? I feel like there may even be a sort of dialectical relationship here, But i don't know I'm just spitballing here. What say you robot?

A: Your observation is an interesting one and the idea of a dialectical relationship or a certain ironic twist in the projection of "strength" onto individuals who might not embody traditional ideals of strength is worth exploring. Here are some potential explanations:

Projection as Compensation: Some followers may project their idealized version of strength onto a leader as a form of compensation for their own perceived weaknesses or inadequacies. They may be drawn to leaders who, despite not fitting the typical mold of a "strongman," exude a certain confidence or defiance that resonates with their own desire for empowerment.

Anti-Establishment Appeal: Many far-right supporters are driven by anti-establishment sentiments, and they may view unconventional leaders as more authentic and relatable. A leader who is perceived as a "clown" or "buffoon" by the mainstream may be seen as a genuine outsider, challenging the status quo. The projection in this case may be about the desire for disruption and change.

Rejection of Elitism: A leader who does not conform to traditional standards of behavior or appearance might be appealing to far-right supporters who reject what they perceive as elitist or establishment standards. They might project their own disdain for political correctness or establishment norms onto the leader, who becomes a symbol of defiance.

Psychological Dissonance: Followers may project an image of strength onto a leader who is perceived by others as weak or buffoonish as a form of psychological dissonance. By elevating the leader and identifying with them, they are indirectly validating their own beliefs and convictions, even if those beliefs are contradictory or incongruent with the leader's actual characteristics.

Shared Vulnerability: In some cases, far-right supporters may identify with the perceived vulnerabilities or flaws of their chosen leader. They might project their own sense of being misunderstood, marginalized, or ridiculed onto the leader, who becomes a symbol of their own struggle for recognition and respect.

Dialectical Tension: The notion of a dialectical relationship is an intriguing one. There could be a tension between the desire for a strong, authoritarian figure and the rejection of mainstream ideals of strength and authority. This tension could manifest in the projection of strength onto leaders who defy conventional standards, creating a dialectical interplay between the ideal of strength and the reality of the leader's characteristics.

Ultimately, the psychological mechanisms at play are complex and multifaceted. Projection can serve various functions, and the appeal of certain leaders may be a reflection of the diverse and sometimes contradictory desires and emotions of their followers. The consistent selection of leaders who don't embody traditional ideals of strength could be the result of a combination of these factors, shaped by the specific socio-political context in which the far-right movement operates.