To the New York Times:
Someone in Europe referred to the Norway killer as an "icon." As in Arizona, in the U.S: In both slayings, there emerged persons that praised the killer. These persons publicly stated that they were happy. The NYT has this to say: "Nonviolent political parties can hardly be blamed for the violent actions of a terrorist or a homicidal person."
That's hardly the point. It is extreme individualism.
Further down in the NYT article, a Social Democrat in Germany calls it "individualism." That is what it is. Pure individualism. Nonviolent political parties are to blame; yes, because we all are. Society is to blame for individualism --- who else? For an individualism that opens fire on randomly selected persons merely because they are of the European ruling class, because they are at the opposing party's outdoor rally, or because they work at a facility in Oklahoma that is run by the government... It is not a matter of casting a glance around in order to name who or what it is that is "hardly" to blame.
I don't think individualism is wrong. Individualism is alright. It's alright for those who can handle it. For those who are lacking an interior sense or voice that tells them not to shoot others we need a society for them, a society for that, a society with a bit less individualism.
Basically, that means being concerned about one's own society and being engaged. You only can go so far with the theory of individualism, whether in North America or in Europe.