Western Civilization's influence is not merely benign; it is gloriously beneficent. It has provided unexampled prosperity; it has improved itself and progressively diluted and purged its own worst elements; it is has advanced learning and realized for many the hope of a life that is neither nasty nor brutish nor short; it has nurtered the sciences and the useful and fine arts to a degree that astonishes the neophyte who approaches them. Unlike other systems, its survival relies on a paradox: it is the most virtuous, not the most brutal, who are most successful at using force to defend it. Those admirable soldiers are the envy of the world, and can defeat the enemy not just by force but by hope which wins his putative allies and makes them our friends. Our enemies want many things, but one thing binds them together: the need to make the world safe for barbarism. For only under barbarism can they thrive in the life they have chosen. We must see clearly what they want for us and work to deny them their goals at every step.

I welcome the start of an intelligent magazine. The mission to "defend and celebrate Western civilization" is particularly praiseworthy. However, your statement of principles contains some points that may be at odds with your stated aim. "Free speech and a free press" - wonderful. "The dignity of the individual and the family" - Ah. 'I want to defend the dignity of my family by executing my slut of a daughter. Will 'Standpoint' support me'? "the liberty to worship and to refrain from worship" - interesting. "scientific enquiry limited only by respect for human life" - Ah. So, the liberty to worship is not to be limited by respect for human life, as science is. The mullas among us (moslem and christian) should all subscribe to that. Science, on the other hand, is to be so limited. Really, if you wanted to start a magazine for religious enthusiasts who want to limit scientific enquiry, you should put it on your masthead. I would guess you didn't really mean to give that impression. How about some clarification on this rather important point? "the rule of law" - good. "parliamentary democracy" - OK, but don't you care about hurting Americans' feelings? "the free market" - excellent. "human rights balanced by reciprocal duties" - good, but is there a hidden agenda here that I am missing? "toleration of minority views and practices, but not at the price of moral relativism" - Ugh, that moral relativism! No way! "These ideas come from ancient, medieval and modern thought that we call Western civilization." - great. But wait a minute, what is that in parentheses? "Judeo-Christian"? What is that? One thing it is not, is the origin of western civilization. It has more the ring of a desperate historical sleight of hand with the aim of reassuring an ignorant and easily flattered Jewish reader (sponsor?) that his views are taken seriously. Of course, they should be, if he supports free speech, the rule of law, democracy, human rights, etc. And then there is the bit about limiting science and not religion.... Anyway, lots of luck in your new publishing venture, and even more luck in refining your basic principles.