As far as I can tell one of 2 things happened:
1. conservativerepublican8 was a real person, and Justin (because it sounds better than jsnts, and the full name is to long) made fake called conrepno8 to prove something about religion, and statism.
2. conrepub was a sock used by Justin to prove his point
what was the point
Read this page
. Reply #60-67. There you'll find the culmination of my frustration trying to explain why religion is the same as statism. So I go ahead and expose "faith" as irrational primitive gibberish, but my logic is ignored, as usual. At the time, it felt as though I had put someone in "check," only to have them try to move a random piece of the board (ignoring check) or just get up and walk away from the board and pretend nothing ever happened. That's what always happens when you corner people in one of these discussions.
Then I had a great idea. If I claim that religion = statism, and I know that statists like to think with their guts rather than their heads, the same should be true for the faithful. Instead of writing down formal proofs about how god by definition does not exist, or explaining parallels between god and state, I would be better off using some sort of emotional way to convey my message. I could pose as a republican (a statist), and then get the christians upset over how I cling to my beliefs, just as though it was faith. I would ignore and then dismiss their logic as useless in trying to convert me to anarchism.
Turns out, I got exactly what I wanted. I got christians to start calling me out for my "blind faith" and refusal to accept reason. Then I took off the mask, revealing my psychological trickery, and that made people uncomfortable. So the evidence of this cool experiment was destroyed. Fortunately, I still remember the results, and it turns out they should be applicable in converting people to anarchism. You need to strike people with emotion, or fill them with some sort of awe. That's much better than pure logic when arguing with the illogical. That is, the "Anatomy of the State" isn't going to have any more of an effect on your average voter than "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" will have on a deity worshiper.
But this makes sense, right? Stefan Molyneux has been saying this for a long time. We've won the intellectual battle. It's over. The reason we haven't achieved market anarchism isn't because we don't have the ideas. Writing one more book rehashing Rothbard and Mises isn't going to jumpstart the ancap revolution. No one wants to hear ideas, and we can't change that too easily. Similar reasoning applies to mysticism, except it's even harder to reach people, because they fear their own mortality more than anything....