For well over 3 years, a number of 'Anonymous' posts have been devoted to explaining that the Q movement is either impossible or useless or both.
Thereby the Q movement has proved that it can happily and safely survive its own death by keeping itself busy proving it has actually died.
There is an immense variety of disassociated paths
converging on one point of anti-Q. The farewell to Q never ends.
What is repressed, banned from acceptable discourse and declared verbotin by big tech is not done away with, however, if it makes up an unremovable part of culture. It either survives, temporarily silent, in the underground of civilisation or seeks to find outlets in distorted expression.
Victorian manners failed to abolish sex and God has not been buried forever in people's minds under piles of books devoted to death-of-God theology and related exercises.
The sensibility to traditional worries of the Q movement has not withered away; it survives subcutaneously, ready to reveal its presence as a result of slight accidents.
'Anons' who have abandoned the faith in the Q movement - whether pragmatists or historicists - are in an awkward position: they live on those very worries which, they explain, we ought to get rid of altogether, as they make no sense and are of no imaginable practical use.
Kek
h/t Leszek Kolakowski.