"The political chicanery of the Salient editocracy"

Some time ago I bought an advertisement in for World Vision with the request that it be published in Salient. I was shown an article from Salient May 1, 1973, which criticised World Vision. The article stales that it is a puppet of the US imperialists and is propping up the Thieu regime, and is also a fraud. The editor, God bless him, said he wasn't going to do anything for such an organisation.

I wrote to Geoff Renner, the director, who replied to explain why the article was utter rubbish. Even without such information it is possible for the reader to see how the article is divided into three parts: the story, which says little and draws stunning conclusions; the headline, which is a direct and deliberate lie; and the cartoon, which is another direct and deliberate lie.

After arguments with said editor at some length, I was told to run along and see Peter Wilson, who apparently knew all about the terrible things they were getting up to in the Philippines. My eyes would then be opened. "Oh yes," said Peter, "they suddenly called for a lot of workers there. I think it's pretty suspicious — they must be bolstering right wing regimes." Funny how our editor can turn poor Peter into an expert on the situation on the basis of such knowledge as this.

There was no suggestion whatsoever in the original article that the money does not reach sponsored children. The ludicrous claim was made that most of the money in their appeal went to advertising and the rest to Thieu's generals but Mr Renner has plenty to say about this sort of lie. However, no comment was made on the sponsorship system. I have proof that either the money does reach them, or else World Vision is a massive fraud on worldwide scale. Although the title of the article claimed this the story didn't, and there's as much evidence for saying that World Vision is a fraud as there is for saying that the Chinese Revolution is a fraud. In other words. World Vision is a very worthwhile organisation. It works somewhat differently from other charities in that each person may become the sponsor of an individual child on a basis of about 32c a day; so that you will be looking after one child and you will know exactly where your money is going and what it is doing.

It's unfortunate that the political chicanery of the Salient editocracy has delayed this for so long, but I became tired of waiting. I held back from writing anything while I thought that some answer would be made very soon, but it seems as if it will (conveniently) be the end of the year before anything happens. Since he hasn't obliged by writing to Mr Renner yet, he'll doubtless oblige by printing objections under here. His little italics will explain in down-to-earth prose my lack of political knowledge (conceded) and exactly why it is important for children to suffer lack of education, starvation, lack of clothes or even die rather than do anything which may prolong the rule of Daddy Thieu.

I am of the opinion that a majority of people here believe that it is more important to help people than to change the names of their slave masters. Of course, they don't need so much help when they're dead. But if anyone is interested, they're welcome to contact me for details about World Vision — find out for yourself.