New Video -- A Moral Dilemma Examined

I'd like to share an e-mail that I got recently. It is from a woman who would describe herself as traditionalist conservative. Specifically, she is Catholic. In her message, my correspondent addressed certain ethical concerns that she felt in connection with counter-feminist activism. She sought my input, and I answered to the best of my ability. But here is the e-mail, edited only slightly for stylistic and discretionary reasons:

Hello Fidelbogen!

Quite some time ago I talked about handing out leaflets printed with website addresses. I finally got these printed, and meant to give some out today to the guys who do our lawn. But I couldn't because I found I had a moral dilemma, and I bring this to your attention hoping you might be able to shed some light.

Here's the problem. Ignorance is bliss for some men, especially younger men, because this culture is all they know. They function within this culture, some of them experience the shitty end of the stick down the road, others will go their whole lives with a vague sense of disgruntlement, but they will have their family. Even taking into account the high divorce rates, is it justifiable to be the means by which a family could be broken apart? Granted that whatever information I provide would only sooner draw the problems to the surface -- assuming there are any -- giving such information, rather than letting them find it on their own, I might play a part in breaking apart another family. That's my problem.

Let's suppose that a guy goes to those websites and he wants to see some changes in his life - he realizes that it's not okay to be taking crap, stuff he "blew off" before. He also knows that the divorce courts are biased towards women, that if they get a divorce there is a high chance that he will hardly ever see his children. So, yes, now he knows how wrong things are, but he is powerless to do anything about it, Essentially he would be happier not knowing, happier with the old status quo.

On the internet. I am a small-time evangelist against feminism; giving these slips of paper out would be considerably more pro-active in the sense that these men, to my knowledge, are not searching for answers, because they don't have the questions yet. If I take such an active part in raising the questions, is it possible that a family that would have made it together, at least through the youth of their children, would be broken apart? I know I wouldn't be the immediate cause of this, but I wouldn't be so remote either. And taking into account that as a patriarchalist I consider family, not the individual, to be the most important element in society, it is abhorrent to me. But is this information owed to them?

Anyway, this email is probably too long, but I hope somewhere in there you get the drift of my problem as I see it. Theorizing that you had a family, and children that you would die for in a heartbeat, given the choice of knowledge which might separate you from your children, and ignorance (and you might still eventually be separated from your children - I would think it's just a matter of immediacy), which would you choose? I tend to think that most men would prefer the ignorance, delaying what might be the inevitable.

Such was the e-mail that I recieved. I responded with the following message -- again, slightly modified from the rough original:

Hello. Here is my quick and immediate answer, from the top of the dome.

It all comes down to averages.

Either road you follow, something bad COULD happen. The question is, which choice would likely cause the least damage overall.

Let's say that you hand the leaflet to some guy, and he absorbs the information, and gets 'politically awakened', and then decides to do something adversely 'preemptive' as you have
suggested.

You COULD argue that you're a second-hand agent in making
that happen.

All right, now let's say you DON'T give the leaflet to some other guy. And so, lacking that life-saving information, his wife nine-elevens him and his life is ruined. He might even commit suicide. Who knows?

Here too, you COULD argue that you're a second-hand
agent. The question is, which option would implicate you the least?

For all it would matter, couldn't you just toss a coin?


And if you simply gave up on the whole business, wouldn't it still work the same on average as if you had done either thing exclusively, or decided by a coin toss?

So, I would say the question becomes: "Averages considered, why should i NOT hand out leaflets?"

Maybe it is all a matter of Fate, and Faith. Have faith that fate (or "providence" if you prefer) will work according to its necessary, appointed program.

If feminism, and all that belongs or pertains to it, is simply ignored and left alone, what will happen? It will keep growing; I feel mighty sure of that.

Very well, make that factor your baseline. Your "constant". Your "given". If you simply ignore feminism and all that belongs or pertains to it, it will KEEP GROWING.

So it looks like the dutiful, responsible thing is to intervene in some way -- and that forebearing do so could not improve the state of matters. For, how else to hinder or reverse the growth of feminist innovation in all of its subtle and pernicious forms, if not by intervening?

And handing out leaflets is certainly an intervention, as opposed to NOT handing them out. If anything will thwart feminist innovation, informing people of the situation (EVEN at the risk of being an 'adverse agent' occasionally) is more likely to do so.

So I would say trust ( or have faith) in your agency on behalf of providence ( or. . .fate). But not BLIND faith, mind you, because here you will be acting according to REASON (as I have outlined it in the present case).

Doing NOTHING AT ALL to blockade the growth of feminism will surely issue in all the adverse consequences, and more, that you fear might arise in the course of your leafleting.

But more significantly, these consequences will increase, and in the fullness of time bulk large and assume erratic, uncontrolled, unpredictable forms. Or if you will, formlessness. Chaos. Entropy.

And form, I would say, is better than formlessness. Better than chaos. Better than entropy.

Your proposed action is: to spread information.

And what is information, if not that which gives form and counteracts chaos or entropy???

So finally, if you want my opinion, I would say: hand out those leaflets every chance you get, for your chance of being a providential, divinely guided agent would enjoy better odds that way. . than any other way.

You see, by sharing such information, you are shining light on the objective situation. You are dispelling mental darkness.

And I think it is far better to walk in the light than to stumble in mental darkness, damaging both yourself and everything you bump into along the way. It will generate the least damage overall, if non-feminist men and women have a clear light upon the objective historical condition of the world.