A Chance to Act Rather than Complain

Nothing is more feminine than talking about your problems without acting on them.

I am increasingly concerned about the “manosphere”. The discontent of men is exploding, for good reason, and its potential is huge. Men have enormous power, if only they will use it. And yet most seem to prefer complaining about the world rather than exercising the leadership to change it.

This is a feminine impulse. Women love to talk about their problems and express their feelings, and what they want more than anything is for someone to listen. They do not necessarily even want the problem solved. They just want sympathy.

What are we doing that is so different, when we complain about “unfairness” and injustice without acting on it? This is just one more example of ongoing feminization, striking at the manosphere itself and emasculating us all. We are all women now. We might not wear dresses and make-up like transgrenderists, but in our own way we are feminized just the same. Transgenderists at least actively defend their interests.

In a sense, the traditional conservatives are right about one thing. The “tradcons” are themselves hopelessly feminized, of course. They extol all things “manly”, but their manliness is more often servility. They fear feminists and are quick to mimic and “simp” for them and stab other men in the back when feminists complain about them.

But they are correct that there is too much whinging and whining in the manosphere and seeking sympathy, too much passivity, as if we expect someone to rescue us from the railroad tracks. Some men defiantly refuse to defend their interests, insisting that humanity can go to blazes. They have no intention leading. Instead, they plan to survive, they say, and enjoy themselves.

This borders on self-pity. No emotion is more debilitating and paralyzing. Women can get away with it, because they get sympathy from others. Men do not.

Social media reinforces this passivity, I fear. We fall under the spell of “influencers” (much as women become susceptible to gurus), who tell us what we already know but love to hear over and over again.¹ We click “Like”, and then we vent our feelings (more than our informed convictions) in endless comments that are far too numerous for anyone to read. While some influencers do provide us with important information, more often they merely express opinions that confirm us in our own.

I have elaborated on these points in posts and in videos (and more below).

Trump and Men

Donald Trump has benefitted from male discontent and, to a modest extent, inspired men by his leadership. His style is bold, decisive, action-oriented — in short, masculine. This appeals to men and produced the strikingly widened “gender gap” in the election. But his administration has done nothing to curtail the horrific government-inflicted injustices against men, and moreover, he has shown a disconcerting tendency to appoint feminist-leaning women to key posts.

The Administration needs to be pushed uh, encouraged.

The Alternative

We now have a brief opportunity, that does not come along very often, for some concrete action that could change US government policy decisively for men, children, women, and families.

This one step may seem old fashioned, but we know it works, and it will achieve far more than watching another video by another influencer. The Trump Administration now has 2-3 key positions to fill that could decisively restore the status and health of American families .

Here is what you must do:

Call or write the White House (contact information below) and your senators, and demand that they fill these key posts with men who understand the problems and solutions. More specifically, you can request that President Trump appoint Shah (of “This Is Shah”) as the Director of the Office for Child Support Services. I myself have also applied for the post of Assistant Secretary to direct the Administration for Children and Families, and I would be grateful for your support as well. These are the key federal offices in executing the Administration’s family policy. Both are bastions of feminism.

(And if you do not like us, then find other candidates. The Children’s Bureau is another office that needs to be overhauled, if you have recommendations.)

Shah and I explain the importance of these positions our newest video:

Federal "Family Policy": A Story of Mischief

Contact Information for the White House:

The best way to make your views known to the Trump Administration is simply to call them on the telephone. Inundating them with calls can make a difference:​

White House: 202-456-1111 Switchboard: 202-456-1414​

You can also try this number:

​Transition team: 202-775-9111

​ ​You can also leave a comment here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

You can also use email, but the consensus is that email has less impact:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/contact/

​The best way of all is the simplest: Send a letter on paper:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

More on this here.

Below are my previous pieces on Trump’s family policy (including articles published in mainstream media). The quickest way to become informed is to read these pieces or watch these recent videos that Shah and I made and circulated previously.

---

“HHS Destroys More than Health”

HHS Secretary RFK, Jr. just announced that he is gutting the gargantuan Department of Health and Human Services, including the elimination of numerous agencies. But his attention appears focused entirely on the health side of HHS. The “human services” side equally needs reform and reduction.

A federal government agency’s name often reveals what it destroys. Shah and I just released 3 videos showing how the huge Administration for Children and Families — and its agencies charged with administering “family policy” — actively and deliberately destroy the children and families they claim to be helping.

Here are the videos, and below that is information on what you can do to change this:

“Dr. Stephen Baskerville for ACF and Shah (of “This Is Shah”) for OCSS!”

In this video (the most recent), we explain why we decided to become candidates for these positions.

“Breaking the Feminist Lock on the Family”: 6 Keys to How the Feds Crush Fathers and Families (interviewed by Tom Golden)

An interview with Tom Golden of “Men Are Good” in which we place ACF and OCSS in the larger context of the US government’s official feminist ideology.

“Who Controls Child Support?” with Dr. Stephen Baskerville

Here we describe the basic workings of these destructive federal agencies: the Administration for Children and Families and the Office of Child Support Services.

---

“Trump Can Reverse the Decline of America's Families — and the Main Cause of the Decline of America”

February 25, 2025

Donald Trump and the rest of us have a rare opportunity to decisively reverse the decline of America’s families and with it the decline of America itself. He can cut the Gordian Knot of family deterioration with an action that is feasible and cost-free — one consistent with the bold Trump style.

Trump has two appointments that carry immense consequences but receive zero attention in the media — including the alternative media and even from MAGA Republicans:

• Administration for Children and Famiies (ACF)

• Office of Child Support Services (OCSS)

Both are bastions of feminism and administer programs that are enormously destructive of families (as well as men, children, communities, America…). Both need real leadership, not hacks offering business as usual.

Both fall under the Department of Health and Human Service (HHS), so RFK, Jr. is ultimately in charge. But while he has a clear agenda and expertise on the “health” side, he has shown less interest or understanding of what happens in “human services”, which is the side that administers welfare and social work and that destroys families, fathers, children, low-income communities, black men, other men, and more by the millions. Who serves under him in these offices is critical.

These offices are also prime candidates for the ax of Elon Musk at DOGE. If Musk is serious about rooting out government waste, he cannot avoid welfare and family policy, and that means confronting ACF and OCSS.

But with tragic irony, Musk has some personal challenges of his own right now when it comes to matters of paternity. Musk is not the first prominent conservative politico to fall into the clutches of the child custody gestapo. He would also not be the first to prioritize his own survival rather than going public with his personal experience and speaking out against its injustices, thereby helping other men, their children, the society, and his country. I have encountered many such high-profile men over the years: bold alpha males elsewhere, but cowards on this.

So will this honeytrap inhibit him from fulfilling his responsibility at DOGE to confront and reform this most egregious case of government fraud and chicanery?

In any case, I am not sure we can count on Musk or Kennedy to undertake the necessary changes themselves. That is why these appointments are critical.

Kennedy’s limitations and Musk’s compromised status means that the Administration may be responsive to suggestions for nominees direct these agencies. You can be sure that the feminists are taking a keen interest in who fills these posts, so if Kennedy and Trump follow the path of least resistance (especially Kennedy, with his Democrat background), they might simply defer to the feminists' choices by default.

That is why action is needed. We need to inundate the Trump administration with telephone calls urging them to appoint men who will reform these offices and force them to respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Very soon, I will follow up this post with another, outlining what we must demand.

Below are my previous posts on Trumps neglect of family policy, which will give you more background.

---

“Trump (Still) Needs a Social and Family Policy”

February 14, 2025

The first 3+ weeks of the new Trump Administration has certainly been a whirlwind: directives and executive orders, mobilizing IT wizards to infiltrate and dissect federal finances, and of course the scalpel (or meat cleaver) of Elon Musk and DOGE.

But one area apparently still remains off-limits: the third rail of US politics, where every administration fears to tread: family policy. So far, this adminstration is no exception. It has said nothing about social and family policy. While RFK, Jr. (confirmed yesterday as HHS Secretary) is determined to eviscerate the corrupt “health” establishment within the Department of Health and Human Services, no one seems too hurried about confronting the gargantuan “human services” side of the HHS behemoth.

This avoidance is conspicuous to those of us who remember that for decades reforming social and family policy — welfare above all — was the Republicans’ top priority. (No reform ever took place.) What happened?

Simple: the feminists took control of social policy and politicized it. No longer a simple question of controlling government waste and inefficiency (in which case it would be a straightorward matter for DOGE), the welfare matriarchy was mobilized as a vehicle for “gender equality” and the “empowerment of women”. This makes male policymakers tremble. With the (partial) exception of abortion, conservatives fear to touch anything that will anger feminists. Accepting the principle that "To learn who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize", we are not ruled by Globalists or Deep State functionaries, but by superannuated female adolescents with green hair. As always, “The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.”²

Radical sexual ideologues took control of the family policy machinery in the 1990s, giving themselves control over how much of the next generation is raised (breeding more adolescents with green hair). Trump and MAGAs generally show no signs of realizing this or, if they do, no stomach for confronting it. Even with the Globalists disarmed and the Deep State neutered, the Kamalas and Swifties could return in ever-greater numbers.

Donald Trump and his new administration have shown a lot of courage in a lot of matters. But no voting bloc became more deranged by Trump’s election in the first place, and he and his team will have to show still more spine to effectively take on angry cat ladies.

One such oversight is forgivable. Refusing to confront an impending danger is something no one can attribute to Trump: cowardice. But men who courageously face down physical danger from other men then wilt before disapproval from women.

Below is a post where I elaborate on this topic, originally published last November, and it links to several articles I published (some in mainstream media) going back to the first Trump Administration. Nothing has changed.

---

“Trump Needs a Social and Family Policy”

November 14, 2024

Donald Trump has never developed a plan for addressing social and family issues or for reforming the wasteful and counterproductive government machinery. Yet it is arguably the most pressing overall crisis in America, since the ongoing destruction of the family — foremost by the very government agencies that claim to serve their welfare — underlies and exacerbates all the others.

His first administration made no effort to reform social and family policy, and so the family policy apparat remained and remains a bastion of the radical left. In fact, they used it as a base from which to launch attacks that helped defeat his re-election in 2020. (And think tanks and “NGOs” that advocate for “the family” are mostly bastions of neocons that collude with the Left.)³ Not so long ago, family policy and welfare reform were the main priority of the Republican Party. But since it became dominated by radical feminists, who terrify conservative men and reduce them to simpering sissies, the Republicans cannot seem to run away from it fast enough.

The government’s family policy bureaucracy is by far the most intrusive into private life. In many ways it was where “the Swamp” began (as I demonstrate in my new book, Who Lost America? ). The welfare state was the original “Deep State” that first brought the power of the state into private life and then brought the Left to power.

I have also demonstrated this in several Substacks:

• “The Origins of the Deep State” (June 2023)

• ”The Origins of the Deep State (cont'd.)” (June 2023)

• ”How They Invented the Deep State While No One Was Looking” (Sept. 2024)

Twice in major publications, I have proposed specific, practical measures for the Trump administration to adopt that will stop state functionaries from destroying families. I see no need to update them now, because nothing has changed or diminished the urgency since those pieces were published:

• "Draining the Swamp Must Include Social Policy and Welfare" (Epoch Times, 2022)

• "A Social Policy for Donald Trump" (Daily Caller, 2016)

---

If you want to read more analysis that will push you to think “outside the box,” you will find it in my new book, Who Lost America? Why the United States Went "Communist” — and What to Do about It — available from Amazon.

Stephen Baskerville is Professor of Politics at the Collegium Intermarium in Warsaw.  His books and recent articles are available at www.StephenBaskerville.com.

1. “What most readers [and viewers] want is to be told over and over what they already believe, preferably in combative prose,” writes columnist Fred Reed. “Most columnists and websites do exactly this.”

2. One obvious solution is to grasp the nettle that has stung successive administrations of both parties: fatherlessness. Even amid Covid, recession, election rigging, and war, former gang leader John Turnipseed still calls fatherlessness “the biggest problem we have in the nation”, and Jason Whitlock, Candace Owens, and Larry Elder say the same. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently showed, yet again, how to evade it.

3. A little known fact that I describe in the book (p. 135): ‘Neoconservatism’ today mostly refers to the aggressive American foreign policy, especially since the Cold War.  But when the term originated in the 1970s, the other preoccupation which defined it was welfare policy.  Early neocons produced some cogent critiques of welfare, but they lost their nerve in the 1990s, when feminists took advantage of the Republicans’ failure to reform it by politicizing it and making criticism hazardous.