At our leading universities, it has become quite trendy to advocate three passionately held, yet equally contradictory, ideals.

The first is multiculturalism, the second is moral relativism, and the third is a general embrace of liberal “tolerance.”

Multiculturalism holds that all cultures are essentially equal and must be held in equal esteem. To not accept all cultures as having value and wisdom is to be an ignorant racist or narrow-minded, sheltered Philistine.

Moral relativism teaches that we can never say an act is totally moral or immoral because in a godless universe there are no absolutes. We must simply find some set of values we find convenient and agree that those principles are the bedrock for forming a functional society. If collectively we no longer care for those values, we are free to jettison them at any time because, again, morality is shifting sand.

Third, our universities are quite busy indoctrinating our youth with myriad ideas that can be summed up collectively as “liberal tolerance,” which teaches that ideas of personal responsibility are outdated and that most everything of any importance should be wholly controlled through the apparatus of government.

Further liberal tolerance teaches that activities such as illegal drug use, promiscuity, out-of-wedlock childbirth, homosexuality, self-mutilation, gambling, theft, lying, cheating and many other behaviors Western society had previously frowned on shouldn't be criticized, because to do so is to be judgmental.

At the same time, liberal tolerance is extremely intolerant of any view it doesn't agree with, such as those that advocate the importance of personal responsibility, traditional values or equal treatment under the law. To prevent the defense of these ideas, many universities now have “speech codes” that make it an expellable offense to disagree with leftist orthodoxies, much as existed in the Soviet Union.

Some of the great ironies of holding these values simultaneously are emerging in parts of Europe that have experienced a large influx of Muslim immigrants.

As Europe has chosen to abort much of its future generations of children, they are currently in a negative population growth mode. To rectify this, Europe's governing plutocracy has chosen to import tens of millions of Muslims to replace the diminishing indigenous populations of Europe.

Many of these Muslims enjoy the material luxuries of Western living but wish to implement the strict Islamic law they were familiar with in their native lands.

Shariah laws place requirements on women that are considered draconian by Western standards. In many Muslim lands, women can't vote, drive, become educated, go out unaccompanied by a male relative or even dress as they choose, but must wear a head-to-toe black covering that hides every part of their appearance.

Furthermore, homosexuals can be stoned to death, and women who are brutally raped are often given treatment for their ordeal in the form of a horrific “honor killing” from members of their own family for the crime of having been “defiled.”

The issue Europe is dealing with as the populations of the third world usurp the nations of the first world is how to square their views of moral relativism, multiculturalism and liberal tolerance with the desires of the new population.

By what means can the modern liberal college professor complain if strict shariah law is enacted in his university town in the Netherlands? There exists no moral absolute, and all cultures are equal, so why should he object to the culture of the incoming Pakistanis or Wahhabi-educated Arabs? Is his objection simply racist?

If the homosexual college professor were stoned to death, how could he object? This action is not in violation of any universal moral absolute. It is enacted out of agreed-upon laws of the new immigrants to his nation, and for him to complain would possibly be racist and xenophobic and certainly would expose him as one who secretly hadn't embraced multiculturalism and remained a closet Western culture supremacy Neanderthal.

If the perpetually angry feminist gender studies professor is forced to wear a burka, wouldn't her complaints against this amount to little more than her ignorant intolerance and lack of embracing multiculturalism?

One of the great ironies in the struggle for future control of our Western nations is that the leftwing multiculturalists would often be the first ones stoned to death under the laws of third-world nations. Yet the multiculturists relentlessly defend the culture of third-world nations while having a knee-jerk hatred for traditional values of the Western world.

The multiculturalists are like the poisonous snake that bites the turtle that is giving him a ride across a lake the snake can't swim. By killing the turtle, the snake is sealing his own fate.

The Western leftists are willing to gut the protections that conservative Christians have fought so hard for: rule of law, equal protection under the law, strict adherence to the Constitution, limited government and having the right to live as one chooses, even if in so doing they are consumed in the same fire they set to burn conservative Christians.

It would be nice if some of those on the left could step back from their blazing hatred for a moment to see that the freedoms traditional Americans are fighting for don't just protect traditional Americans, but protect even those multiculturalists that hate traditional conservative Christians.