The Wrath of Dixie

One psyop tactic that the enemy uses on us regularly is to accuse us of hate. Of course the implication is that the hate is never justified or at least that the Left should own the monopoly on hate. This morally disarms the accusee  who typically goes into a defensive spiral of denying that he is a hater. From that point it is game over.

Once you go into a defensive spiral, trying to prove you are not guilty of whatever imaginary sin you’ve been accused of, you are putty in the enemy’s hands. For another example just look at how hard cuckfederates worship their negro Confederate deities that they invoke to save them from the sin of racism. It is nothing but a cowering defensive spiral where the cuckfederate makes a fool of himself and forfeits the battle to the enemy by scurrying to prove he is not a racist.

By accusations of hate (implied to be unjustified and the product of an evil heart) the nonChristian disarms the Christian. Perhaps the accuser will even phrase the argument something like:

  • How can you be so full of hate and call yourself a Christian?
  • As a Christian, how would you respond to those who accuse you of hating others?
  • As someone who claims to be a Christian, how did you come to hate others as you do?

On one hand, we must not deny hate because that disarms us. As soon as we start trying to prove how not hateful we are, we have gone from being the lion to being their whipping boy. It is just another form of unilateral disarmament, a psyop to convince us that it would be evil to act in our own national defense.

On the one hand, it is very hard to explain how our own self defense is justified without losing the argument on the rhetorical front. We must not try to use dialectic to block a rhetorical attack like that. We might as well use martial arts moves designed to block punches and kicks when our enemy is shooting us with a gun.

What we need is a rhetorical tool to swiftly and decisively justify our hate for what is wrong. What we need is to rhetorically justify what is most certainly justified wrath, if not justified hate. To strip ourselves of justified wrath/hate is to psychologically disarm and defeat us. Rather than putting up a fight, we just willingly submit for the enemy to put his ring in our nose and by example encourage others to do the same. Enough.

One potential lingo-meme that we can use is to appeal to “the wrath of Dixie” whenever appropriate. This is basically an agree and amplify tactic. I’m not saying that the agree and amplify tactic is *always* best, but I think it fits the bill in this case. Let’s examine an example engagement that might take place on camera or phone interview:

Left: Why do you hate these immigrant groups?

Us: Look, these people by their invasion of our territory have absolutely incurred the wrath of Dixie to its fullest extent.

Here’s what just happened:

  • Agree & amplify disarms the Leftist. He was trying to push us down a path of retreat and submission and is disoriented when his magic word doesn’t work anymore.
  • Wrath of Dixie morally justifies our position by rhetorically likening it to the wrath of God. Our “hate” (which is just wrath rebranded as evil), now shines through as holy and righteous wrath.
  • Wrath of Dixie, by likening to wrath of God, projects strength rather than weakness.
  • Wrath of Dixie, by invoking Dixie, memes for our ethnic collectivism. It is no longer a personal argument. The lone man being interviewed is no longer alone and surrounded by wolves. The wolves now find themselves surrounded by a mighty nation and she is wroth. <<Yes, that’s a word, and one thing you don’t want is for God or Dixie to be wroth with you.

We don’t have to wait until we are prompted to employ this lingo-meme. It is perfectly appropriate for us to use it offensively. For one thing, I want the wrath of Dixie to rain down in its purest and holiest form onto our enemies. I want the wrath of Dixie to rain down onto [alphabet groups omitted] like brimstone onto Sodom. It is an honor for me to be just a humble vessel to usher in the wrath of Dixie and for the wrath of Dixie to flow through me. May Dixie’s wrath be made complete in my life. Amen.


  1. This is what I explain to our people and it has never failed me. First Heritage not hate is a losing battle for the reasons you have linked, but also because it relegates us to the past, as well as allowing our Yankee adversary to gain control of and steer the dialog.
    As for the charge of slavery….
    Slavery is irrelevant to the legality of secession.
    Our Yankee adversaries will always attempt to introduce slavery into the dialog in order to deflect from the legality of the issue, thereby gaining control of the dialog.
    DON’T FALL FOR IT!!!!!
    Make them stay on tract by asking if they wish to discuss the legality of secession or have a conversation concerning morality, because you would be pleased to discuss the occupying Yankee governments Extermination of millions upon millions of Native American Indian men, women, and children, and the internment of the survivors on “Reservation Camps= genocide?
    Tell them to research ….…/RS=mZUbeJJfgxPektJzGOBzEr……
    And NO: The trail of Tears was a U.S. atrocity, not a CSA govt act.
    Ask them to also research the accounts of their U.S. Soldiers in the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre, wherein the unborn were carved from their mothers wombs and scalped, Nursing infants tossed into the air and impaled on U.S. Bayonets as their little bodies fell toward the blood stained ground, while they were supposedly fighting to “Free the Black Man”.
    I should think the Yankee would prefer to discuss the legality of secession as opposed to his governments morality.
    Ask the Yankee to cite the article within his U.S. CONstitution, amendment thereto, or law that states that secession was or is Unlawful or illegal.
    Absent a law making an act unlawful or illegal, the act is by default perfectly lawful and legal. Each State retained the power of secession under the Yankees CONstitutiuon’s tenth amendment.
    Always challenge the Yankee to cite that Article!!! All else is irrelevant.