It's possible that he uses money in propagandising and is ultimately successful in hastening the 'end of money'.

How would that be possible, though? That's my question.

I don't know what that propaganda would look like. But I think the important thing in this context is that I see no logical barrier to it existing. We can't say apodictically that such propaganda would fail, whether it's successful or not is an empirical question. And even if that propaganda did fail, that wouldn't mean that the money abolitionist has contradicted himself.

Bear with me, I don't know if this next analogy completely works! I'm also thinking of a WW2 resistance fighter. Imagine they managed to infiltrate the German military ranks and pass themselves off as a high ranking official for several weeks, all the while gathering information to help the resistance. While under cover, he facilitated, in some small ways the German military project - but his belief was that this was worth it because of the much greater degree to which he would undermine that project later on. The infiltrator too hasn't contradicted himself - he knowingly facilitated a lesser evil (in his view) in the belief that he did so in the service of preventing a greater evil. I think the money abolitionist is in the same boat.

(Love your videos, by the way. Enjoying the chat!)

Thanks! And likewise.