Believing in the concept of institutions or even the idea of a nation state doesn't mean someone isn't an individualist, that is absurd. Individualism within the context of classic liberalism means that there is a separation between the state and these institutions and also the idea that people ought to be treated as individuals. The idea of a state is intrinsic within classic liberalism because to is impossible to live without one , read the Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. The idea is that the state is constrained to be the point of being weak.

Constraining individualism to Ayn Rand or Max Striner is pretty simplistic. If a system always devolves into violence or property theft it will always destabilize and result in a state, however free the system is depends on the values the system holds.

I don't know everyone listed in this starter pack, but some of the people within this starter pack aren't simply engaging in what you're describing as system justification. Classic liberalism is founded on the idea of constrained government and the individual as the source of authority, while the identitarians increasingly seek to increase the size of government and turn every discussion into a tribal game. The debates of the 19/20th century have been a tug of war between conservatives and classic liberals over the authority of government, it's disingenous to claim they're the same. Defending Freedom of Speech, relatively free markets, and and civil liberties is not the same thing as "defending the system" against people who want to expand the state.

The "cultural war" is really a spoof. It's a debate going on between conservatives and progressives. Most classic liberals have no interest in combining religion and the state or morality and the state; the disagreement currently going on is an extension of the science wars, which is a whole different matter.