A reader sent me this ARR tweet from a few years ago. My position on these questions has always been clear. When the USA eventually breaks apart like the USSR, new countries will emerge reflecting a range of political and cultural values. The majority of the new countries will likely continue to be mainstream in their ideological orientation (liberal, conservative, centrist, nominally libertarian, or nominally social democratic). A minority will likely reflect some “extremist” viewpoint (socialist, communist, anarchist, radical libertarian, tribalist, theocratic, or ethno-statist). Whether that is good or bad is an individual value judgment but it is simply the way things are likely to turn out. In such a scenario, the main fascist danger will not be the conventional far right as much as the previous regime/ruling class/state security sector trying to reclaim its position.
I consider the national-anarchists to be a legitimate branch of anarchism (no different than anarcho-transhumanism, anarcho-primitivism, Christian anarchism, egoist-anarchism) who bring a range of interesting ideas to the table (a kind of synthesis of Landauer’s folk anarchism, panarchism, and Green anarchism). And, yes, I consider non-leftist forms of anarchism to be “real” anarchism. Anarchism is beyond left and right, and the hyphenated forms of anarchism represent necessary dichotomies (an-techies vs an-prims, an-coms vs an-caps, anarcho-pacifism vs insurrectionism) that collectively exercise a yin/yang effect.
It’s interesting that ARR has since gone on to join a homeland security/national security think tank.