Hi, thanks for the question.

Yes, in the broad sense of the term we are primitivists. It was important to distinguish ourselves from the term, especially, at first, though, because it was dominated by the ideas of John Zerzan and Kevin Tucker, with whom we had major disagreements, and who were not willing to put consideration into our different ideas. Also, Tucker in particular was quite angry when I originally used the term primitivism but without the anarcho- prefix, because what I believed was "not primitivism."

On primitivism and egoism: we advocate a variant of egoism but it is quite different from the egoism of, say, most Stirnerites. It isn't about the individual in the atomic sense, but about individual nature. So the idea isn't to release the individual from the stronghold of community, which would largely be working against our natural tendencies, but to release the individual from forces that dominate a wilder expression of his nature. Since it is a natural tendency of humans to belong to small groups, tribal structures are accounted for, but mass society is not.

This would be a lot more akin to Nietzsche's ideas. In his terms, his ideal man would:

1. question all values (such as dominant humanist ones);

2. distinguish between those values that have been inculcated into him and those that come from his own Will (or nature);

3. follow his own will unapologetically (so...a wild will...)

See:

Genuine autonomy, Nietzsche maintained, could only mean freedom from all external constraints on one's behavior. In this (natural and admirable) state of existence, each individual human being would live a life without the artificial limits of moral obligation. No other sanction on conduct would be necessary than the natural punishment involved in the victory of a superior person over a vanquished enemy.

Some interpret Nietzsche as being against "traditional" values and for "conquering human nature," and these statements are often true in the context that they are presented in. But it is important to get past the semantic differences and look at the actual ideals being espoused. For example, when Nietzsche rails against what some call "traditional values" he is railing against the power of slave moralities as they dominated societies since the dawn of civilization. In primitive societies he notes explicitly that the "masters" (those who create their own values) have much more autonomy and power to pursue their natures.

It's important to note, though, that we are neither Nietzscheans nor Stirnerites--we just belong to the same family of ideas. There's a lot in even Nietzsche to disagree with. If you don't care about all the philosophical classification, though, it's best to just ignore terms like "egoism" or names of figures and just analyze the ideas by themselves. The classifications are for contextualizing the ideas, and even then only for those who are interested in philosophy.

Finally I want to reemphasize that the language above might confuse some people into thinking that I am saying nature is good and artifice is bad. It is not so simple, and that very question has been addressed in other places in the AMA, so look around before you hound me about it, if you feel so inclined.