Question

It’s pretty clear to anyone who follows your lectures and writing that you are unusual not only in terms of content, but also in your very approach to what should be said and written. You are among the few in the Torah world who have the courage to present their conclusions without filters and without considerations of “what will people say.”
And yet, precisely now, when you are founding a movement like “The Third Path,” and it seems that you want to influence the broader public and not suffice with internal intellectual thought, the question arises: isn’t there a certain contradiction here? Do you think that sometimes it might be better to downplay content that grates on traditional ears, in order to enable broader listening to other content? A kind of strategic self-limitation—along the lines of “the gain is not worth the king’s loss.”
For example, if I’m arguing with a Haredi person and want to convince him that, halakhically and morally, he should enlist in the army, or for instance that there is room for interpretive, homiletic reading within Jewish law, then if I use the reasoned arguments from the Rabbi’s books and columns, those clearly have the potential to influence him—as someone accustomed to thinking, but who has simply never encountered this in matters of “worldview.” (As we see this selective mechanism in YouTube videos from the Degel HaTorah channel. You wrote in a column that it’s exactly like that! And I would add, from repeated discussions, that learned kollel men, well-versed in Torah and Jewish law, not only do not apply yeshiva-style analytical and therefore critical thinking to matters of leadership and worldview, they are actually not familiar with the Torah sources regarding authority in Jewish law, or even issues like an obligatory war, etc.)
Leaving aside the masses of amulet-kissers and people pushing in line for “the Yenuka,” logic and arguments definitely do work on a large segment of the population. But they too have weaknesses in the form of ad hominem: “What you’re saying makes sense, but who is saying it? Michael Abraham, who doesn’t believe in individual providence?”
I emphasize: especially in discussions of topics with current practical significance—what in the Haredi public is called “worldview”—issues that affect enlistment, core curriculum, etc., where in any debate about them it is very easy to reach a total argumentative knockout, when the other side is finally forced to admit: I’m convinced, but are you smarter than the leading sages of Israel? It is important that behind those who present the position that does conceptual/Torah/halakhic analysis—and, as mentioned, it speaks to much of the relevant public—there should stand advocates who will not easily collapse in the face of ad hominem arguments.
So the question is whether you ever considered neutralizing parts that are seen as “provocative” in order to make the rest of your thought more accessible, or whether you are completely committed to the position that the truth must be said even at the cost of potentially harming public influence? Or perhaps, I’m trying to guess, what matters to you with regard to the masses is to instill the approach that a logical/intellectual/Torah/value-based conclusion should be stated at any price, and that for this very reason it is important to present also the conclusions that are perceived as very extreme/innovative/provocative. 
And from here, a complementary question: are there philosophical-religious conclusions that you arrived at, and nevertheless chose not to publish, specifically for educational or strategic reasons?