I had initially thought that he was speaking more in defense of real anarchists who are slightly more advanced in their reasonings, thought processes, and understanding of the system.. However, upon re-reading I see the faults in the article as well the intended use of "vigilante" he mentioned several times - I didn't catch that on the first read.
With that said, I think there's a lot of validity to some of his talking points, ESPECIALLY the idea that this starts with us. For example - and I'm not the best writer - but I wrote a post, How I Created My Own Anarchy, which touched on us needing to take our own action initiative towards anarchism in our daily lives because without it, we're not really gaining any experience in the philosophy or lifestyle itself.
In all reality, simply saying "I'm an Anarchist" is about as valuable as saying "I'm a Republican". Identifying with something is a lot different than practicing something, and if we're not practicing it, it's not much more than a nice idea. We can place blame, point fingers, have ideas, etc.. It's only when we begin to implement these ideas that we see real progress.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your rebuttal, and as always, I commend you on your ability to continually react with calmness and class.
i specifically pointed out "individualist anarchism" if you bothered to read my whole analysis @xvickx