An interesting critique of yours truly from what appears to be a Stirnerite perspective. Read it here: http://sireinzige.blogspot.ca/2015/12/panned-anarchism.html
Keith Preston actually took some time on his site to respond to my criticism of his approach so I shall return the favor.
I think I should get straight to the point on primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary approaches seeing as this is really the heart of the matter.
While I can agree that certain cultural critiques along with identity politics have gotten out of hand, I don’t see your first order approach as any better. Ironically, much of the cultural critiques are micro derivatives of those bigger topics of empire and geopolitics that were badly framed to begin with. I don’t consider those issues to be first hand problems to tackle for various reasons. For one thing, anarchists have an inherent affecting problem when it comes to those areas of wanted change. Anarchists have no power to affect geopolitics on their own terms.
On the issue of empire, I don’t consider that to be major problem for anarchists to tackle simply because we don’t really live in system of empires anymore. We live in a compulsory exploitative epoch, not an imperialist one. At most there are carry over legacies of empire with the US being the last man standing. Capital and State much more significant drivers of this world then this over emphasized empire of yours but even bigger then that would be the problems of work and organization and the continued quest for power(to name the important ones). Critique of the state for instance is(as Bob Black says) but one form of the critique of organization and work. From this I consider lifestyle/personal preferences to very much matter simply because they are inseparable from any serious orientation against work. For me orientation and not organization are what matter.