Are Liberals Turned-On By Turning The Other (Gluteus Maximus) Cheek?

By ilana mercer

A Norwegian male was raped by a Somali asylum seeker. The last term—Somali asylum seeker—is something of a contradiction like the first (Norwegian man). The asylum-seeker honorific is given to practically anyone from the Dark Continent or the Middle-East who washes up on Continental Europe’s shores.

The politician, Karsten Nordal Hauken, who says he’s heterosexual, went public with the details of his awful ordeal. “I was raped by a Somalian asylum seeker,” he wrote in a Norwegian newspaper. “My life fell into ruin.”

But it was Nordal Hauken, not his assailant, who proceeded to assault sensibilities with a confession that rivals the crime for reprehensibility. Hyperbole? I don’t think so.

As Hauken, a self-described left-wing feminist, tells it, he has been wracked by guilt because one night of passion has caused his Somali assailant to be returned to sender. After resting up in a Norwegian prison, the rapist is said to have been deported to Somalia. (I can find no evidence of said rapist’s whereabouts. Maybe he’s en route to the US?)

Hauken laments being overcome by “a strong feeling of guilt and responsibility. I was the reason that he would not be in Norway anymore … .”And: “I see [the Somali] mostly like a product of an unfair world, a product of an upbringing marked by war and despair.” (This liberal peppers his writing with lots of “likes,” “millennial teen-talk,” as Patrick Buchanan termed these linguistic infelicities.)

In his perversity, our leftist political powerbroker further characterized the light sentence given to his rapist by the Norwegian State as “the ultimate revenge,” meted out by “an angry father confronting it’s [sic] child’s attacker.” Mr. Hauken also moans that Mr. Priapus would be “sent to a dark uncertain future in Somalia,” instead of enjoying, presumably, the bright future that awaits a man with his priapic proclivities in welcoming Norway.

Hauken has since come to the conclusion that he might not have been raped after all, but simply subjected to “a cultural difference.” What a penetrating observation!

A somewhat shallow analysis of this sorry specter was offered up in the British Spectator. It chalks up Hauken’s confession to a simple case of “Stockholm syndrome,’ used to describe hostages who take on the perspectives of their kidnappers. Perhaps the Hauken case,” opines The Spectator’s Douglas Murray, “could be used to coin the term ‘Norway syndrome,’ an affliction that causes rape-victims to feel concern over the prospects of their rapists?”

Tellingly, The Spectator writer collapses the distinction between the reaction of this male heterosexual and that of another rape victim: “a ‘no-borders’ activist on the French-Italian border.” She “was gang-raped by a group of Sudanese immigrants but was persuaded to keep quiet about her own rape, in case it was used to undermine the open-borders cause.” However, as far as we know, the raped woman has never publicly expressed a kinship with her gang rapists and is said to have been coaxed into silence.

Good or bad, the Norwegian Nordal Hauken has spoken openly about a reality few straight men would reveal: rape by another man. Hauken, not the female vanquished by the invaders, is the one said to feel for his violator. So far, Hauken has certainly shared his inappropriate feelings more promiscuously than most.

Indeed, the liberal program aims to dissolve “the constitution of man” in the service of sexual sameness. It is predicated on the imbecilic belief that biology is incidental, and that men and women are essentially interchangeable.

Egalitarianism, the goal of the Left and the Political Right, rests on the blunting of male-female differences. In the service of egalitarian sameness, the man-vs.-female biological imperatives are rapidly, if reflexively, being dissolved. Survival, however, has a biological dimension. A submissive, effete civilization, made up of men like Mr. Hauken will not endure.

The repulsive specter of Karsten Nordal Hauken just about turning the other cheek to the man who spread both his cheeks is not an isolated case.

The pale, liberal patriarchy is a pioneer in forever scrutinizing itself for signs of racism and deficits in empathy toward “The Other,” while readily accusing others like it of the same. It’s as though liberal men derive homo-erotic pleasure from bowing-and-scraping to assailants and ceding to racial claims-making. (Left-liberal women certainly have a fixation—theirs is erotic, for sure—on rescuing dark, handsome, exotic-looking strangers. Judging from their irrational, histrionic protests against President Trump’s travel ban, we appear destined to live or die by these females’ hormones, or their replaced hormones, in the case of Madonna and Angela Merkel.)

Could it be that the left-liberal male is driven by a powerful homo-erotic impulsive? Who knows, but as the example of Nordal Hauken shows, this specimen is queering at a rapid pace.


ILANA Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer and thinker based in the US. Her weekly column was begun in Canada in 1999. Ilana is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) and Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow ilana on Twitter: , Gab:, Facebook:
Subscribe to ilana’s YouTube channel


  1. Unfortunately, another indication that western civilisation is reaching the end of the road.

    Are we heading for a new dark age?

  2. This gentleman has been raped twice, the second time ideologically. It would appear that he has reacted broadly similarly both times.

    I recall that in the early noughties there was an interesting psychological study done in the US which used some electronic means to interdict brain activity for the purpose of measuring reaction to human difference among two cohorts, one of self-described liberal students and the other of conservative students. Each subject was presented with a succession of neutrally posed men and women of all races and asked to rate their response. It was notable that the brain reactions of both conservative and liberal students were consistently the most marked when images of African-Americans were presented, most particularly males – and this was the case even among African-American subjects. The conservative students scored their own reactions quite close to the electronic measure. But the liberal students assessed their own reactions quite differently, apparently sincerely believing that they saw nothing but human beings.

    Now, I accept that one should be wary of constructing very much on the basis of a single, small-scale study. But I think that two observations, at least, are worth making. First, there is more than a simple attachment to ideology separating these cohorts. The liberal students exhibited a capacity to suppress their own natural reactions, suggesting that the liberal war on human nature has an authentic, personal psychological root. It is projection, in freudian terms. The liberal’s tears of bitter self-recrimination for his and our perceived racial sins are cried not for our supposed victims but for himself. It is a pathology but it is also something structural in the brain. It may not be resolvable by political change … for example, if the public discourse is shifted to a more conservative form.

    Second, the only commonality revealed in uch studies, and the only true universal, is human nature in all its variegated, localised, heritable forms. There is no equality in Nature, only fitness to environment; and fitness dictates for local adaptation, difference at the mean, and superiority and inferiority on every measure. That is the inconvenient, unchangeable racial truth. It is, therefore, more pressing and necessitous for the liberal to wage his war on human Nature that for the conservative to defend it; and accordingly conservatives have not defended it. They have, until the 1990s certainly, relied on Nature to defend itself. Latterly, however, they have allowed themselves, in their craven pursuit of power, to be co-opted by the liberals. It is, therefore, necessary for nationalists to do what conservatives lack the will or capacity to do themselves.

Leave a Reply