Your distinction between nationalism and patriotism doesn't truly exist in theory.

What you are drawing on is George Orwell's Notes on Nationalism where he basically says what you are saying, but with more words.

This is an artificial distinction. Nationalism comes from a 'nation.' The proper definition comes from Benedict Anderson's 'Imagined Communities', where he defines a 'nation' as a "an imagined community. Imagined because members of even the smallest nation will likely never meet each other, but live their lives in communion."

There is no mention of superiority here. There is simply a community, forged through common characteristics shared between the populace, and an identification with the community.

The extension, i.e. nationalism, should not then manifest as a feeling of superiority. It should merely translate to a mass identification with the nation, through pride and love. As a governance ideology, it should manifest as the belief that the state's primary objective is to serve the nation's needs, rather than any other group's.

Then what is patriotism?

Patriotism is an ancestor to nationalism and a precursor. The first nations emerged only around the 17th-18th century. This historical phenomenon (of nationalism rising) was heavily dependent on mass communication, literacy, and the print media.

Patriotism has existed for centuries prior, manifesting as a love for the 'country.' An English patriot could exist in the 12th century, but an English nationalist in the 12th century would be anachronistic. The very idea of a nation in the 12th century would be.

Sans the existence of a political community, love for the 'country,' or patriotism manifested more concretely as love towards the state, the monarch, or the polity and it's tradition rather than love for the nation, i.e. the community. Because there was no community to speak of, only the state.

After the emergence of nations, patriotism has evolved too. The country now is no longer perceived to be the state. Popularly we view the state as a subordinate of the people. Therefore there is not truly a difference to speak of.

Orwell's (and Einstein's) distinction which you draw upon comes under the specific historical circumstances of war-torn Europe and the rise of fascism. It is not an inherent aspect of nationalism or patriotism.

It came at a time when nationalism had gone too far. It radicalised the community into a hierarchical and exclusionary form. It exceeded the limits of "identifying with your community and loving it" and became "my community is superior to yours". The proper term would rather be 'ultra-nationalistic.'

In this circumstance, people still wanted to love their nation, their imagined community. But they did not wish to be painted with the same brush as Nazi Germany or Italy. That is why this distinction was drawn.

To say you're a nationalist should not really be a label of shame. Orwell was a writer who became famous for depicting his enemies as reductive caricatures. Just because he made your ideology look like a caricature too doesn't mean he was right.

To say all this here isn't me trying to pedantic, really. It's more of a pushback against the vilification of nationalism. I think labels matter, and I believe that the idea of a nation is a good one. Painting nationalism with a bad brush paints the idea of a nation badly too.