The etymological definition of patriot:
1590s, "compatriot," from Middle French patriote (15c.) and directly from Late Latin patriota "fellow-countryman" (6c.), from Greek patriotes "fellow countryman," from patrios "of one's fathers," patris "fatherland," from pater (genitive patros) "father" (see father (n.)); with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition. Liddell & Scott write that patriotes was "applied to barbarians who had only a common [patris], [politai] being used of Greeks who had a common [polis] (or free-state)."
Meaning "loyal and disinterested supporter of one's country" is attested from c. 1600, but became an ironic term of ridicule or abuse from mid-18c. in England, so that Johnson, who at first defined it as "one whose ruling passion is the love of his country," in his fourth edition added, "It is sometimes used for a factious disturber of the government."
The name of patriot had become [c. 1744] a by-word of derision. Horace Walpole scarcely exaggerated when he said that ... the most popular declaration which a candidate could make on the hustings was that he had never been and never would be a patriot. [Macaulay, "Horace Walpole," 1833]
Somewhat revived in reference to resistance movements in overrun countries in World War II, it has usually had a positive sense in American English, where the phony and rascally variety has been consigned to the word patrioteer (1928). Oriana Fallaci ["The Rage and the Pride," 2002] marvels that Americans, so fond of patriotic, patriot, and patriotism, lack the root noun and are content to express the idea of patria by cumbersome compounds such as homeland. (Joyce, Shaw, and H.G. Wells all used patria as an English word early 20c., but it failed to stick.) Patriots' Day (April 19, anniversary of the 1775 skirmishes at Lexington and Concord Bridge) was observed as a legal holiday in Maine and Massachusetts from 1894.
From Etymology Online
So, even from its oldest use & definition, the word just means people who share a "fatherland" or homeland. There is nothing moral or philosophically sound about patriotism, it has always been basically the same as it is now, except earlier on it was referring to people's loyalty to other people from the same piece of land, instead of the same state, neither of which is a basis for loyalty, and certainly not an excuse for violence.
There are a lot of sickeningly violent beliefs expressed in your article, but this one in particular stood out:
“Americans are resilient, and even when we get knocked down, we get back up. Remember how brave Americans stood up to and defeated Imperial Japan.”
You mean, remember how the American government allowed an attack to happen that they could have stopped, in order to destroy one of the oldest cultures on the planet, and drop nuclear bombs on millions of people whose government was already at the point of surrendering?
Words change meaning over time. Ben is simply trying to use existing words to describe different ideas in order to explain a distinction to the non-anarchist. It's like how he uses the word "government" to describe the actions of the political class, while "State" refers to the religious belief in the legitimacy of government. I suggest familiarizing yourself with his work before assuming he somehow supports the US actions in WW2. http://www.badquaker.com/archives/3273
Words have meaning. Just because people forget what that meaning is, or misuse it, doesn't change that meaning. This is the whole point of the esotericism seen today, to keep people giving their focus to ideas without actually knowing what they are.
I'm not going to read through all of someone's work before responding to a specific article, and direct quotes from it. If something is written where the definitions of words are going to be changed in order to describe ideas metaphorically, that should be stated clearly in the post. Semantics is a thing for a reason.
But when an author specifically states the definition for a word in the context of his work, it is absurd to pick at that point instead of trying to grasp the concept.
The entire article is clearly framed as an attempt to prove what patriotism is, and how it aligns with anarchy. Then he quickly changes tune and says
You can't prove that something is aligned with morality by immediately re-defining the word, and then giving examples of how your new definition fits the morality. This is intellectually dishonest, a sort of bait-and-switch.