Continuity News

Continuity News

W. J. Sidis

Mimeographed newsletter, 4 pages, found in Helena Sidis's files in 1977.

Temporary mailing address, c/o Parker Greene, 905 Central Sq. Bldg., Cambridge, Mass.
Subscriptions, $1 per year, 50¢ for 6 months. Issued monthly. For discussion groups, each subscription after the first is 25¢ a year in addition.

For many months Continuity News has pointed out the fact that the New Deal administration has been steadily blocking flood control in New England, actually preventing four New England states from going ahead with a project for the purpose long agreed upon, in order to force on New England a set of power dams labelled flood control but absolutely worthless for the purpose―totally indifferent to the drowning of thousands of people so long as it asserts one-man power and bolsters up the most corrupt patronage machine in America's entire history.

It would have been surprising, from the continuity point of view, if New England, the source of most rebel tendencies in the world, were to lie down and take it without resistance. That the matter was brought up during the election campaign of last fall, has appeared from previous issues of our paper, and we have seen that it had much to do with the administration's severe setback in the November elections. The hurricane-belt vote proved important when it appeared that flood control would have been a reality long ago in the Connecticut and Merrimac valleys but for the Roosevelt regime, which seems to delight in drowning people by the thousands in order to show that rule by one man has replaced the principle of human rights and consent of the governed.

During the last month, Governor Aiken of Vermont seems to have taken a similar attitude to that indicated by Continuity News for so many months. He has proclaimed, on behalf of his state, resistance to the eviction of the people of one of the state's villages when the Federal administration attempted to impose one of these power dams, falsely labelled flood control-dams, on the valley of the Connecticut River. That Vermont is not [ ] to [ ]―as opposed to fake flood control, is amply shown by the fact that it stands ready to do its bit in a four-state project already agreed upon, but blocked by Roosevelt because it leaves Roosevelt's Farley & Co. no power to sell, and gives that over-ambitious firm no extra authority. It is a well-known fact that power dams must be built to be always full, while flood control dams are worthless unless built to be normally empty; in other words, to be good for flood control, a dam must be guaranteed against all exploitation for power or reservoir purposes. This was done by the four-state pact blocked by Roosevelt, and a record was left by the New deal showing that it definitely opposed projects undertaken by states for use and not profit.

Vermont is pre-eminently fitted to be the leader in revolt against outside encroachment of authority. From 1758 to 1790 it was an entirely independent nation, defying Britain and the United States alike to control it. In 1774, an Albany court, supporting land title claims of New Yorkers, ordered the eviction of all inhabitants of Vermont, and an Albany mob shouted to the Vermonters "Now do you know you're licked?" And Vermont maintained its independence, and showed amply that they never know when they are licked; and Vermont has ever since then hated Albany politicians (of which, in Vermont's estimation, Roosevelt is a fair sample); and Vermont, maintaining its independence, encouraged the United States to declare―and win―its own independence, so much so that it has been said that, without Vermont, there would have been no United States. Vermont was never subdued by the United States, but ultimately entered the Union on its own terms―a Federal bill of rights, with guarantee against outside encroachment on Vermont's internal rights. And now that an Albany politician has renewed eviction attempts―the Resettlement Administration tried in 1934 to condemn Vermont mountain land as unfit for habitation, and is now trying to do the same with Vermont's valleys―Vermont continuity requires resistance to the utmost. The old-time Green Mountain War is in a fair way toward being renewed, and it is only to be hoped that New Deal stubbornness will not drive the Green Mountains to open revolt.

The revolt against Federal encroachment is gradually extending to other New England states. The New Hampshire legislature has already taken a stand similar to that of Governor Aiken of Vermont; while the Massachusetts legislature is considering a proposition made by the Governor, consenting to the cession of land for flood control purposes, but reserving to the State the right to prohibit exploitation for power purposes, as such exploitation is almost a deliberate drowning of thousands of people of the state.

Senator Walsh of Massachusetts is attempting to arbitrate this new Green Mountain War. There has been no success so far, though the states, including Vermont, have offered considerable concessions in the interests of settlement.

The New Deal Liars, as usual, have filled the country with the false allegation that "moneyed interests" are responsible for all opposition to New Deal programs. In view of the constant danger to human life here, let these propagandists be considered as personally guilty of planning any deaths that may result from flood in New England.

The following Limerick expresses the New Deal side of the story―the quotation is from the New York Post, one of the most vicious New Deal organs in the United States:

"There once was a man from Montpelier,
Who spoke his mind freelier and freelier,
'Tarnation,' he said,
'I'd rather be dead,
Than be helped out by any New Dealier.'"

Note that―as may be expected from the advocates of would-be dictatorship―"speaking his mind freely" is considered a serious offense.

"They call it flood control because they would capitalise on the fear of those who live in the valleys, their fear of loss of life and property. They call it cheap power development because, in so doing, they can capitalise on the animosity of a large percentage of the people."

"We do not want to turn ourselves into a herd state in order to be able to deal with other herd states."―Dorothy Thompson

In a "University Extension class run by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a vote was taken on who got the worst publicity in the American press during 1938. No. 1 in this respect was voted to be Frank Hague of Jersey City; the runner-up was Adolf Hitler of Germany.

From far-off Hollywood comes a message to us, addressed to one of the members of the Successors of Shays, lambasting us unmercifully for criticising the New Deal and insinuating that there is the intention of dictatorship involved.

Our California reader states, among other things, that personal power is necessary in order to get things done. The entire history of the United States is dedicated to precisely the opposite proposition; on the contrary, our California friend's argument is the exact argument used in support of dictatorships everywhere. Maybe he objects to our labelling the New Deal as a would-be dictatorship; but his form of support for the New Deal is much better evidence in that direction than any of our arguments could adduce. In this case, the President has no worse enemies than his friends.

This reader also states that Roosevelt is the greatest statesman in the history of the world, and asks us to name a greater one, mentioning (with question marks) the names of Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, and Mussolini. Again, we repeat that the "great statesman" as a source of power is utterly opposed to everything in American history; and our correspondent could do no worse injury to Roosevelt than to classify his name with these other four. He is practically labelling the President a dictator much more definitely than we have ever done.

Anyone hankering to be under the "personal power" of a "great statesman" can find so many countries on earth where he could have his wish, that it is incomprehensible why such people should insist on bothering with the United States, where every tradition runs to the contrary.

As for the Californian's assertion that our opposition to the New Deal is due to New England conservatism and the "moneyed classes," we have dealt with that particular variety of New Deal propaganda so often that it hardly deserves further attention. That New England has, for countless centuries, resented and resisted all attempts at personal power, is a matter of public record. The American Revolution―the Shays Rebellion―the overthrow of the dictator Andros―the Abolition movement―the anti-draft riots of 1917―these all came from New England; were they the conservatism of the moneyed classes? And it may not be amiss to note that whatever civil rights Californians enjoy, date from the Bear Flag rebellion of 1846, started by one William Brown Ide of New Hampshire; would our California friend like to undo all that as the propaganda of New England conservatism and moneyed classes?

The American neutrality issue is still with us as much as ever. The President is at present attempting to jam through a "big defense" program, but encountering from the new Congress enough opposition to show that they resent the "snap the whip" tactics being used on them. Some of this program will possibly pass, but the present Congress obviously has no intention of allowing a repetition of the incidents of 1916-17, when a similar armament program was used by a war-mad President to force a war on America and destroy civil liberties everywhere under the camouflage of "making the world safe for democracy." (And as Margaret Wilson replied, "What is democracy?")

Some excitement has been caused by the discovery that the President has not only engineered the sale of warplanes to a European power but giving away military secrets to that power. And, although Roosevelt has shown every inclination to sidestep if not violate American neutrality laws, it is doubtful if these facts have the importance credited to them, especially as this particular matter is not covered by the neutrality laws. But the incident is having its effect on Congress, and seems to be creating a tendency to consider measures for strengthening the measures needed to protect American neutrality; particularly as to leaving the President less discretion to force the country into war.

American neutrality policies go back to Thomas Paine’s advocacy, early in 1776, in his popular pamphlet "Common Sense," of American independence as a means of keeping clear of the European system of alliances and hostilities; and, in 1794, the United States became the first nation to adopt a code to safeguard its neutrality in foreign wars. The embargoes of 1808 represent the beginning of the present neutrality policies; the failure of the 1916 attempt to revive these embargoes resulted disastrously, by involving the United Sates in a European war; and, now that a limited form of the embargo has been put on the Federal law-books, it is being sabotaged by the administration, and persistent propaganda is being raised by advocates of the war to have these laws repealed. Though the repeal advocates claim these embargo laws are unneutral, it is notable that there has so far not appeared a single person on that side of the question who has not same Old-World axe to grind. This propaganda sometimes insists that neutrality is impossible (as though, when a war starts, every nation must be at war with one side or the other); more often it is claimed that neutrality means restoring a balance of power (which is interference, not neutrality), or that anything affecting once side or the other is unneutral (whereas neutrality consists in indifference to such effects). And, while the embargo laws need strengthening to bolster up American neutrality properly, there is also no question that America cannot be involved in a war unless it wishes to.

The Tribes and the Sates (a new version of American history), 50¢. per section. These sections are now ready, covering history to 1689.