Hi. Actually you've provided nothing new, but being difficult to let go is a given so I don't blame you at all for thinking otherwise. It takes genuine effort to deprogram yourself and grok this. That's understood.
You say "They are." clearly meaning subatomic "particles" are more fundamental than the atom, deriving direct from the context. But given there were no subatomic "particles" because there's nothing there one can definitively call a particle without butchering the common understanding of the term just to force them into reality, your complaint simply amounts to a tautology. Same goes for "Atoms have structure so they can't be fundamental (apologies to Democritus)" only you should be apologizing to Leucippus.
Far as 'If you want to "see" these particles head to one of the poles and watch the auroras' - nice try, but wrong again. Apparently you've failed to notice that protons and neutrons are (mercifully) excluded from the
chart. Auroras are reportedly caused by "solar wind" blowing protons (and electrons which don't exist) from the Sun to Earth's atmosphere where they ionize Nitrogen and some other gas which then react with the Earth's magnetic field to produce the visual effect. Now why isn't a proton considered a "subatomic" particle? Good question.
It's like this. First you get the neutron. Also not "subatomic" for the same reason,.. which turns immediately, automatically, into a proton when needed to balance the charge. A proton is a neutron with a charge. And that's all there really is at the most basic material level. No negative imaginary material need apply. But earlier you said it was the atom, wtf? Yes, but what is Hydrogen without imaginary "electron particles"? A proton. That's what and why. So if anyone had said the neutron is really the most fundamental material since they precede protons, I wouldn't argue the point because it effectively amounts to the same thing.
Har har. Pointless non sequitur duly noted.