"fuck him and fuck his site."
Seconded, I started reading PN's essay when they posted it and immediately started writing down notes regarding it's general crappiness, so as to write a comprehensive comment here, but SD, AF and BAA beat me to the punch ;)
For anyone who's interested, here are the disorganised thoughts I had whilst reading PN's essay (I didn't get close to finishing it, the self-righteous tone was too off-putting):
Fixation on what is rational and 'logical' is off-putting and spookish, in my experience appeals to reason are pretty much always appeals to spooks. My anarchism is based not on objective moral principle but desire, and is therefore completely irrational and illogical - if my desires were to be confined by logic then surely, being a white, (culturally) middle class male, logic would lead me to desire the status quo, because it is to my benefit in a lot of material ways. But I don't support the status quo, I'm not a statist, I'm an anarchist; not because heirarchal relationships are immoral but because I don't like them, I don't enjoy them.
Coming across the phrase 'I-Theist' I winced. If this means what I think it means, I don't have much time for it, or anything else that reifies yourself for that matter.
With regards to 'political theory', I as an anarchist do not cleave to Stirner or Nietzsche, I cleave their ideas to me, PN's writing on the other hand comes across as deeply ideological, rather than egoistic or authentic.
"I'm a moral nihilist who values consistency and thus will not put forth baseless moral arguments against goverment."
Well I'm an egoist (among other adjectives) anarchist who values consistency and so I don't put forth baseless moral arguments against government. In fact I think you'd be hard pressed to find an anarchist on here who would.
To wrap things up, Sidney Parker, after disavowing anarchism, critiqued anarchism from a Stirnerean perspective, arguing that anarchism was incompatible with egoism because of anarchism's alleged inherent moralism, but to my mind he wasn't very successful either, because he couldn't imagine an anarchism rooted in desire rather than principle.