American History, Biography & Autobiography, Book Reviews, Charles, Ethnography, Islam & The Islamic World, Military History, Political Discussion & Analysis, Post-Liberalism, Sex Roles, The Orient, War, Wars To Come
comments 16

Breakfast with the Dirt Cult (Samuel Finlay)

In 1952, Ralph Ellison published, to great acclaim, his first and only novel, Invisible Man. The book narrated how Ellison’s protagonist, a black man, suffered social oppression. But that was long ago, and one thing black people definitely don’t suffer anymore is oppression. Rather, many dish it out, aided by their allies of other races, as seen most dramatically in the terroristic Floyd Riots, but it happens every day in every organization in America. The targets are, most of all, those at the bottom of today’s social hierarchy—heterosexual (that is, normal) white men outside the professional-managerial elite. And Samuel Finlay’s Breakfast with the Dirt Cult is, one might say, the new Invisible Man.

Think hard. Can you recall any book, movie, television show, or any other cultural product that celebrates, honors in any way, or even talks about in other than a contemptuous manner, normal, working- and middle-class, white men (whom we can name the backbone of America, or BOA)? No, you can’t, because our ruling class despises the BOA and works hard to teach everyone, most of all our young, that the BOA are to be despised. Browse any bookstore, and you will quickly realize that none of the books are directed at boys or young men, except with the aim of feminizing them, grooming them, or otherwise corrupting them. There is plenty of young adult fiction—which, as it has for a long time now, all centers around wildly unbelievable kick-ass girlbosses (since the Floyd Riots depicted several shades darker). What is never shown is heroic men, or even non-heroic men who reflect any real-life men from the BOA. This is not because consumers demand such products; rather, it is a deliberate choice by publishers to use their power to indoctrinate the young (similar to the choices made by video game makers). Publishers choose indoctrination, even though they thereby harm their economic interests, because they hold their economic interests inferior to their ideological (and social) interests.

Print (PDF)

You Should Subscribe. It's Free!

You can subscribe to writings published in The Worthy House. In these days of massive censorship, this is wise, even if you normally consume The Worthy House on some other platform.

If you subscribe will get a notification of all new writings by email. You will get no spam, of course.  And we do not and will not solicit you; we neither need nor accept money.


But Finlay, who unsurprisingly was forced to self-publish his book (in 2012), offers us a corrective, a book that puts the BOA, and the uphill struggles faced by the BOA, front and center. Breakfast with the Dirt Cult revolves around the American-Afghan war which started early in the twenty-first century and ended last year with our total and ignominious defeat. It is a roman à clef, a tale about real people that purports to be a novel. The protagonist, Tom Walton, is a stand-in for Finlay himself, and it seems fairly clear that what he writes happened more or less as he writes it. His book offers the type of story that used to be taught to all young men, to aid them on their own journey as they came of age. It revolves around how a man finds himself, in the three matters that loom larger, by nature, in any normal young man’s life than all others. How shall he conduct himself with women? How shall he earn the respect of, and measure himself against, his peers? And, related to the second, how will he respond when he is thrust into danger, most of all into violent confrontations with other men?

Walton is an infantryman in the United States Army, apparently with the 10th Mountain Division. He begins the book by falling in love with a Canadian woman while on leave, in 2002. The frame of the book is really this romance, more than the war—its beginning, its flickering flame throughout intermittent fighting in Afghanistan, its flare-up on Walton’s return to the States, and its ultimate unsurprising end—unsurprising, at least, to a third-party observer who has left his youth behind. For Walton, it’s a formative experience, because for a young man, establishing his connection with the fairer sex is a mysterious, but crucial, process. Walton, however, suffers because this process, like all relations between the sexes, has been corrupted beyond all recognition, and the BOA is the most affected by this, not having the buffers our society ladles out to the professional-managerial elite and non-whites (instead being force-fed killing drugs with the promise of escaping reality, temporarily or permanently).

Still, despite the romantic frame, most of the book’s detail is military memoir, alternating with insights about history and the position in which America finds itself, a corrupt and clueless elite ruling over a dissatisfied yet demoralized mass. While he puts on no airs, Walton reads more than the average infantryman, and is reflective enough to cite Toynbee on the suicide of civilizations and Ibn Khaldun on asabiyyah, along with Juvenal on how wealth corrupts great societies. He sees that the Enlightenment was a fraud that has led society into a box canyon, and he can hear the water rushing up the canyon. These introspective asides give the book a dimension lacking in other military memoirs (such as Clinton Romesha’s slanted Red Platoon).

Walton is an enlisted man, although as a college graduate he starts above the very bottom, and eventually he becomes a minor NCO. He gives us a worm’s-eye view of infantry training, as it was conducted in 2002. Many of his fellow soldiers are crisply drawn; others cycle into and out of the story (which, along with heavy use of military acronyms, to someone like me largely unfamiliar with military procedure, makes the story occasionally hard to follow). This is not basic training, the topic of innumerable films; it is ongoing training as part of base life, with deployments to Bosnia (before the action in the book takes place) and then to Afghanistan. As a result, the life of the soldiers is sketched in a more complex way than is usually found (and the language and some of the happenings are definitely not-safe-for-work).

The training process Walton shows is one of learning military technique while also figuring out where one fits within a group of men who depend very heavily on each other—not only in battle, but for camaraderie (with a great deal of drinking; I didn’t know soldiers were allowed to drink so much on base, at least in non-Muslim countries). This training is of particular interest to me, because I think acquiring military skills on the fly is the coming thing among parts of the general American population. I have been gently criticized for recently saying, in a podcast appearance with Buck Johnson, that basic military training for former civilians could, in a fracture situation in the United States, be accomplished “in a couple of weekends.” While it is true that basic training in armed defense could be completed relatively quickly, it is also true that I exaggerated. Nonetheless, I think that with decent trainers, adequate equipment, and sharp incentives, it would not take more than several weeks to weld an ad hoc militia into a quite capable defensive force, and somewhat more time to turn it into an adequate offensive force against other ad hoc militias and general bad actors, which are the likely initial opponents. (This assumes, however, that the men are in reasonable shape already, not fat and lacking all stamina, which is not a safe assumption. Finlay shows how the military requires, or required, constant exercise, and a great many men today are wildly out of shape, so perhaps that would make training take somewhat longer.)

The soldiers exhibit no apparent racial tension; twenty years ago was the apogee of American race relations. There’s plenty of perfectly normal racial banter, such as eternal arguments between a Puerto Rican in the squad and a California migrant. “Sexy Ricans are head and shoulders above you peasant Spics!” Walton acknowledges that even then, much of the soldiers’ banter would be deemed “hate speech” by the totalitarians back home; I shudder to think what the commissars in today’s military do with such jokes. I assume that the repression of normal speech has reached to the very bottom ranks into the military, but I could be wrong in this. Loose talk among soldiers has been going on forever, and great commanders sometimes take advantage of this to humanize themselves. But I doubt if today’s leaders, much less the diversity hatchet women, have the sense of humor that Julius Caesar did.

Racial interplay, however, is only a subset of an important larger question. How much has our core military, the quite-small actually fighting military, which is composed almost entirely of members of the BOA (along with some non-whites of mostly not-dissimilar views), changed since 2002? Not only in composition, but also in coherence? I would think quite a bit, as everything in our society has been politicized and ideologized by the Left. Now, for example, we have the insanity of women in combat units (though women anywhere near the military is insane), and all soldiers are required to celebrate the corrosive homosexuals and trannies who are aggressively recruited to join their ranks. I find it difficult to believe that what is shown by Finlay—the constant physical training demands, the completely-normal racial jokes, the casual contempt for homosexuals, and the even-more-normal sexual ferment of heterosexual men, aimed at any woman crossing their sight—is permitted in today’s military. It is no surprise that today’s military is having extreme trouble meeting its recruiting goals; this failure seems like obvious cause and effect. Other than benefits, it’s hard to see why anyone from the BOA would want to join today’s military, given the cost/benefit analysis.

Leaving these political questions aside, Breakfast with the Dirt Cult shows why men fight. They fight to earn respect from other men, to prove themselves, and to earn the attention, admiration, even love, of women. At the extreme, they fight for inward-focused personal glory, as did Achilles, but even that is done to demonstrate something to others. All fighting by men is merely some form of the obsession that drove the son of Peleus. They may fight also, but secondarily, for practical reasons, to defend their own, narrowly defined as their family or broadly defined as their nation. Walton is eager to fight “the terrorists who attacked his country,” but that is not what keeps him going, most of the time; it is too abstract. And he recognizes that fighting for the nation isn’t permitted unless tightly circumscribed. He knows, he can viscerally feel, that something in this is very wrong with our elites and where they have led the country. “Pride in one’s country, pride in one’s people, history, ways and beliefs,” could be exploited whenever the American elite “needed the yokels and suckers to sign up, line up, and go fight wars.” But pride is not allowed if “those same yokels and suckers try to express those feelings in ways that didn’t involve killing strangers, but rather sought to preserve and cultivate the strength, identity, and spirit of their homes.” Then it is forbidden, and execrated as evil—what would today be characterized with the stupid boogeyman term “white supremacy.”

Whatever the reasons, it is in the nature of men, and a key driver of civilization, that men want to fight, a truth that is foolishly denied today, labeled “toxic masculinity.” (Sebastian Junger, in his books Tribe and Freedom, has interesting thoughts on this topic.) A man who refuses to fight is not a man, and fighting completes a man. As Walton says, “Being on the hunt with his tribe . . . there was a rightness to it all that appealed to some fundamental aspect of his masculinity in a way which he found both thrilling and liberating.” This centrality of fighting to masculinity is what makes war a coin with two sides. It has always been recognized, even if of late it has become fashionable to deny, that war has a heroic, even glorious, side. “War also offered a glimpse of something transcendent. . . . For all its ugliness . . . for a brief instant, [Walton] had seen men touch upon glory.” This can be seen in much great literature—Shakespeare’s Henry V comes to mind, and this glory that is possible in war (though certainly not war on behalf of or at the behest of our current globohomo rulers, which is a foolish waste, and perhaps only rarely in modern war in general) could be a key antidote to the wussification that has been forced upon American men. Yes, the other side of the coin is horror, and, it is strange to say, Americans have equally forgotten that side of the coin. Even for those few who have not forgotten, they tend not to actually understand, because most modern Americans don’t understand anything at all about war. Nearly the only ones who do are men like Walton, and their immediate families. But Americans will, I predict, learn all these lessons again.

All this said, fighting cannot be permitted to become an end in itself; that tears a society apart. The role of a civilization (and especially of the women in that civilization) is to channel this impulse to productive and useful ends. This brings up the question, debated not long ago in the comments section here, of whether any American soldier should have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Or Bosnia, for that matter, or any other place American soldiers have died in the past thirty years.) A mother Walton meets, when he is recuperating back in the States from extensive bullet damage to his hand and arm, says of her son, “He died protecting his country. I have to believe that.”

But he didn’t. And that his mother mourns for no good reason at all is one of the great tragedies of end-stage America. I have great respect for those, including friends of mine and readers of The Worthy House, who chose to serve in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet their service was a pointless waste, beyond what the men themselves may have gained. Regardless of whether the people we killed were so-called bad people (and most were not, such as the ten children Finlay sees, chopped to bits by a female A-10 pilot, an incompetent like many or most female pilots), as a nation we accomplished far less than nothing. We made the countries in whose affairs we interfered worse for their surviving populations, while we did not make our own country one iota “safer” (already a dubious primary goal, smacking of feminization). Instead, we enormously enriched those who profit from the massive expansion of our odious national-security state, while we became accustomed to enthusiastically granting our rotten elites unparalleled powers to oppress Americans, which they have used with gusto, and are vigorously trying to expand yet further, with the specific current goal of oppressing the BOA. We, following George W. Bush (God rot him), in Walton’s words spent trillions to “overthrow [Afghanistan and Iraq’s] political, cultural, and economic structures,” not to mention those of several other countries (notably Ukraine) using less violent means, all with the intention of turning them into “democracies,” meaning not ruled by the people, but rather full participants in the noxious Left project of combined emancipation and forced egalitarianism. The only silver lining is that all this stupidity has brought our regime closer to its inevitable end while accomplishing few of its goals, but it has been very costly for the BOA, and will be yet more costly before the end.

Anyway, back to the book. Walton spends quite a bit of time musing on the culture and habits of “Haji,” both the enemy Taliban and the population in general. He admires their ability to maintain their identity over the centuries and millennia; they are not deracinated like the people of the West. Certainly, Walton can see that in many ways Haji culture is grossly inferior. “[Haji] was brutal, illiterate, broke as a joke, and smelled like five tons of petrified ass. Allah only knew what he did with those goats. However, he bowed to no one, and Walton grudgingly respected him for it.” (A few years back, one of my eight-year-old boys got in trouble at his school for referring to generic enemies in schoolboy warplay as “Hajis.” His teacher said that was “raaaaaaaacist.” We praised him, and removed him from that school.) But Walton can appreciate Haji for what they are, good and bad. What he, correctly, does not see them as is proto-Westerners, eager to adopt Western customs and beliefs. He sneers at the many stupidities American elites tried to impose on the Afghans. When some meddling staffers from a ridiculous NGO get shot in a village, Walton reflects “Going into a village in a foreign country, and teaching their children different ways and ideas, was asking for trouble. Using a classroom to separate children from the culture of their parents was a form of kidnapping.” True enough, though such kidnapping is something our enemies have done for a long time in America as well, and have now ramped this program up to ludicrous speed, not receiving the same payback, not yet, at least.

All things military, even the stupidities that get men killed, Walton takes in stride. He reserves his bitterness most of all not for the brass, or the rotten elites of America, but for the many infelicities between men and women in the modern age. Feminism is a constant target of his, as it should be, for so-called feminism is an abomination that is largely responsible for the ruin of the West. Walton’s fundamental complaint is that right order between the sexes has broken down, in a manner that benefits nobody, but harms men most of all. Feminists “had struggled for, and won, a world where men were seen as the problem and women as the solution.” Men have become “the disposable sex.” Men are expected to bear all burdens but to make no claims. Men, most of all men in the BOA, are taught that to atone for being men, they must defer to everyone, especially any woman, but also any so-called elite. “If he gave, then he would receive. If he was ‘nice,’ then he would be loved and respected. This was a lie.”

Walton complains, with total accuracy, that the culture demands a man make his woman’s happiness his top priority, without any expectation, much less demand, for reciprocity of obligations. This is related to a phrase that I once found unobjectionable, but have come to realize is, shall we say, problematic—“happy wife, happy life.” Embodied within this phrase is the lie of which Walton complains, that reciprocity is not the goal, but rather servitude to the whims of the woman, whims often dictated by society and changeable as the wind. A man’s real duty is to do what is right with respect to his wife, not to strive endlessly to make her happy (a goal anyway impossible for anyone, for himself or others, if one aims directly at it, as my mother taught me from earliest youth). If she makes his life miserable by her fancies and demands for “happiness” when he does his duty, she needs correction, not more attempts to make her happy.

All this sounds negative with respect to rescuing sound relations between the sexes, and it is. The world of today as between men and women is far worse than it was twenty years ago, and it was plenty bad then. We now have the consequences of the insane degradation of Tinder, OnlyFans, and all the roaring flood of poison injected by the Left. But hidden beneath the surface of manifold tragedies, including those of Walton’s doomed romance, is actually a positive message—that there are many normal Americans left, seeking the answers to a better life, which answers can, we all know or should know, be found by examining the past and applying its lessons to the future. These normal Americans, not only in the BOA , are the wellspring of any future revival in the lands that were once America.

There’s a lot of distance between here and there, however, as this book shows. In much of America, the questions examined in this book, of relations between men and women and of how a man can and should act, aren’t even recognized as questions. That’ll end poorly, but when? This is the question of the age. Breakfast with the Dirt Cult doesn’t answer that question, but it at least raises other important questions, which means it is worthwhile reading for anyone seeking the answers.


You Should Subscribe. It's Free!

You can subscribe to writings published in The Worthy House. In these days of massive censorship, this is wise, even if you normally consume The Worthy House on some other platform.

If you subscribe will get a notification of all new writings by email. You will get no spam, of course.  And we do not and will not solicit you; we neither need nor accept money.


PDF (Typeset) eBook (ePub) eBook (MOBI/Kindle)

16 Comments

  1. Dear Charles:
    I am reading a history book called “Mussolini A New Life” by Nicholas Farrell. It is one of the most interesting books I have ever read on the origins of fascism. My father who was Italian used to tell me that the fascist era under Benito Mussolini was much more complicated than we are led to believe. He was right. In light of an Italian election this month that will bring to power Giorgia Meloni a conservative right wing Prime Minister who is an anti-globalist, I would love to hear your opinion on either this book or the election of this remarkable woman.

    • Charles Haywood says

      Thank you. I have been looking for a good Mussolini book; I will get a copy.

  2. Marcus says

    “We praised him, and removed him from that school.”

    People are realizing this is the key to stopping much of this virtue-signaling overreach.

    One of the reasons to become as wealthy as one’s talents and hard work permit is to have the option to separate one’s family from all of the cultural erosion and underhanded indoctrination of kindergartners.

    Just like the flight from the urban centers 50 years ago, the people left behind in the inner city later wanted to go to school where the wealthy kids went, you know, to ‘have a chance at a better life’, they claimed.

    Funny how that cycle keeps repeating. The well-to-do draw a line in the sand due to pathetic political behavior and extremely low social standards, and when the exodus hits a critical mass, people in the cities are afraid they’re missing out on something and start making all of the same demands once more, you know, for “equality” and such and such. And “privilege”. And “inclusion”.

    Almost as if they’re saying: ‘You had the resources to leave this horrible situation we insisted on creating and forcing on you and your young children. How dare you leave! How dare you move to a neighborhood where I could never afford to live and start your own private schools and your own country clubs (Oh, the supremacy!). We must enact laws so that I can have what you have made for yourselves, otherwise, I am stuck in the city with the consequences of my voting habits.’

    Heh heh heh.

  3. Tennessee Budd says

    “…the questions examined in this book, of relations between men and women and of how a man can and should act, aren’t even recognized as questions.”
    In some places, and some subsets of society in our country, this is true, but it’s a good thing. There are still folks who understand these things, because they’re taught by their parents, their society, and religion.
    Most rural young Southern men and women (but mostly men) do have to learn the bounds and limits, but that’s true everywhere; The foundations are known and passed down.

  4. David MItchell says

    I watched you on Tucker Carlson the other night and was surprised that I finally found someone who espouses my same beliefs and isn’t afraid to voice them. Keep up the great work.

  5. Racheal Sparrow says

    Mr. Haywood,

    I was surprised and impressed that you discovered Finley’s little book that is not part of our enlightened elites’ war-approved “literature” (the “Yellow Birds”, “Youngbloods”, “Redeployment”, ad nauseum) that demands the degradation and victimization of the BOA.

    Coming from “Dirt Cult”, you should now, I hope. discover the one MFA-rejected literary masterpiece to come out of the Afghan War–a novel of the magnitude of Mailer’s “The Naked and the Dead” and Jones’ “The Thin Red Line”, but without those authors’ dislike, disrespect, disdain of and believed superiority to the American GI–your BOA. Just the opposite.

    It is “Tattoo Zoo”. By someone I’d never heard of or read before, a Paul Avallone. Recommended to me by two cousins, separately, to my repeated curiosity as “what was it really like over there?” One a Green Beret, the other a Marine officer–neither chest-thumpers nor ribbon-hounds–told me simply to “Read it.”

    You drew from Finley’s “War also offered a glimpse of something transcendent. . . . For all its ugliness . . . for a brief instant, [Walton] had seen men touch upon glory”, that, you write, “This can be seen in much great literature—Shakespeare’s Henry V comes to mind, and this glory that is possible in war…” Avallone’s novel is today’s great literature in which that glory is found in the BOA, regardless that the cultural, academic, and political intelligentsia deem it not so, that any such nobility is nonexistent in this low caste.

    I pulled the book from the shelf, and I’m looking at the front cover right now, and the image, I realize, would be gut-churningly repulsive to those intelligentsia. And, on the back cover, the faces of the five very-real GIs would be terrifying to those same intelligentsia because they are faces of the BOA who are anything but victims and wusses. I now fan through the pages, and I remember that a couple of weeks ago you said on Tucker Carlson Today that you overwhelmingly read only non-fiction (and Finley’s book, you note here, is really a memoir), and again I turn to the back cover and those five faces, and I am reminded of the adage that “there is more truth in great fiction than in non-fiction”.

    That Truth and that Glory in Avallone’s three days of fiction of the unwinnable war I thank my two cousins for pointing me, with no need today to ask them more.

    Rachael Sparrow
    Cherokee County, Iowa

      • Racheal Sparrow says

        Since I’m here, reading you, it is obvious that I value your perception and analysis and passion and fearlessness in railing against our cultural rot (or should I call it decay, corruption?), and I am interested to learn if you will find the same fearlessness in the author in the subtlety of fiction. Sure, there’s the war story, but serious, honest fiction is characters–characters in conflict (most importantly within their souls?)–and, for instance, Avallone does not shy away from women in combat, (which you highlighted in your review of “Dirt Cult”), nor does he bludgeon us with the rights and wrongs, but we feel it–we know the answer. We know by the feeling. I can’t wait to hear your take. And that is just one tiny aspect in this novel of profound depth written in a voice that deceptively disguises that depth. Then again, that’s coming from me, an English Lit/MFA Creative Writing . . . . cattle-rancher. For what it’s worth.

  6. Stubb Bulkington says

    Charles, I’d love to see a post like “Charles’s Top 25 (or 50, or 100) of the Western Canon.” Would you do something like that? This review put that thought in my mind.

    • Charles Haywood says

      I doubt it. What books are crucial depends to some extent on one’s chosen path in life. More broadly, as I have said elsewhere, the so-called Great Books are grossly overrated, corrupted with Enlightenment thought and missing many crucial medieval texts and writings outside the mainstream liberalism of 1950 or so. Moreover, reading the Great Books tends to passivism. It seems to me that reading the “canon,” however defined, should be secondary to creating the new society. Certainly, reading some of the classics of Western literature is inherently beneficial to the individual and helpful in creating the new society. But it should be a secondary goal.

  7. Just left my NG unit end of June, the ranks are fine. The soldiers are not infected, just more annoyed with PC woke Poz than usual. The best tool for turning people against the Left is mandatory Leftist indoctrination.
    The BOA, white, black soldiers essentially see things same way. The madness of the elites passes above- oh, and the few scum who propagate this will not likely deploy, never mind leave the wire or face danger.

    Its like America; the people suffer but their souls are fine, the elites mad (our Generals are a universal and openly despised wretched lot, even the Officers hiss), the eager Striver’s mumble this isn’t the Hill to die on and all know they will never find that Hill. – and we’ll outlast them all.

    The men are fine if alerted by nearly certain war and demoralized by our National and Flag Officer leadership.

    I will contend our service was not wasted- we learned war, we saw and see who’s who and what’s what; oh and one more thing- – they lost us. Our precious elites lost every veteran, in the presence of veterans the soldiers follow the vets –

    I doubt Mr. Finley would disagree.
    It’s like what Bernanke said about the bailouts, they saved the banks but lost the country.

    They have lost us, and can’t use us against you. If we’re about they can’t replace us or get around us either.

    Don’t worry elites- there’s only about 10 or so million of us, and all the cops come from the same families too.
    I’m sure you’re safe.
    The people are – Safer.

    The people may be starved or vaxed to death but they shan’t be GULAGED.

    That’s no small thing Sir Charles.

    • Charles Haywood says

      Profane, yes. I don’t think it’s boring. But opinions differ!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.