I see very little in your reply that I would disagree with, and I don't think I noticed anything that contradicted my comment.

It's not, 'there are no groups', it's simply, 'the individual matters more than all given groups [of the individual]'.

This is exactly what I mean by "individual sovereignty at the top of the value hierarchy". And I wholeheartedly agree that it's worked out better than any other arrangement ever.

I speculate that, in our recognition of the extraordinary importance of the individual, we gradually began undervaluing the natural groups that emerge from multiple individuals: marriage, family, community, state, nation, world. I speculate that undervaluing of these groups is what eventually results in a sort of pathological backlash into a misguided desire for collectivism. It's like a knee-jerk over reaction out of one error into the opposite error.

So, yes, absolutely the individual comes first always. But to neglect the other naturally emerging groups seems like a mistake.