[Communism & Nazism] are both manifestations of the devil disguising himself as a political messiah, both drive out the demon of unemployment with the demon of war, & call it “just”
– (George Bell, Christianity & World Power, 1940. paraphrased)
Archives For World War two
Nicholas Best recounts a little known story about two Lancaster bombers. One crewed by Canadians, the other by Australians*.
Early on April 29th, 1945 the two Lancasters took off from East Anglia. They flew along a previously agreed upon ‘corridor’. The route was ‘prescribed by the occupying German forces in Holland, who being cut off from Germany due to the Allied advance’, had uncharacteristically turned to the Allies for aid.
They did so, on behalf of the Dutch who were suffering through a famine triggered by the Nazis. Similar to German occupation of Belgium in World War One, the German starvation of the Dutch was a means of punishment for assisting the Allies, by way of a rail strike, which had ‘prevented German reinforcements going up against the Allied assault in Arnhem during 1944.’
Best writes that the situation was dire, Holland, ‘after months of disruption as the fighting came closer, had finally run out of food.’ The situation was so bad, that ‘many Dutch had eaten their pets, and were now living on grass, sugar beet, and tulip bulbs.’
Despite ‘not having the authority to agree to a ceasefire’ [i], level-headed German officials who had sought out the Allies, reached an accord of truce. Thus, allowing the Allies to send much needed humanitarian aid.
Not completely trusting of the German truce accord, the Allies flew a test mission along the agreed upon corridor.
The test flight, as Stephen Dando-Collins wrote, ‘had all the hallmarks of a suicide mission.’ These bomber crews were ‘guinea pigs’ testing out the German agreement to not fire on the Lancaster’s flying low to deliver humanitarian aid to the starving Dutch. [ii]
The ominous mission was a success, and it kick-started Operation Manna – an unprecedented humanitarian air drop, which involved 200 bombers, flying at low levels, dropping much needed supplies into Nazi occupied Holland.
The first bomber, ‘Bad Penny’, flown by Canadian, Bob Upcott led the way. He described the event in detail, testifying that,
“when we passed the Dutch coast we saw anti-aircraft guns that pointed their muzzles in our direction. We even saw tanks that tried to keep their gun barrels on us. We were looking right down a number of barrels. All the guns were still manned…The Australian pilot was on my port side [left], flying echelon port. I dropped first when we were over the race track, while the Australian dropped almost the same moment.” [iii]**
The second Lancaster was flown by F/O. Peter G.L Collett, from Sydney. He was 21 at the time, and already a veteran. Along with the Canadian crew of the first Lancaster, Collett and his Australian crew* effectively spearheaded the humanitarian mission.
Collett passed away in 2012. Although his heroics are mentioned in passing chapters about Operation Manna/Chowhound, no Australian books have been written about him or his crew. Collett’s bravery isn’t taught in schools. His efforts and heroism currently only exist as a footnote.
While Upcott and his crew are celebrated, the same cannot be said for Collett. Unlike Collett, Upcott and crew remained on as an integral part of the Manna Operation, drawing a bigger spotlight on the original flight into the unknown than was given to Collett.
Collett’s absence from the spotlight appears to have been due to him being reassigned to Operation Exodus. Collett’s service record reflects as much. From the dates 1st February, 1945, to 19th May, 1945, under 101st Squadron, right next “Bomber”, below the word “Bombing”, and above the word “Exodus”, sits the word “Supplies”, where the word Manna test flight should perhaps also be written.
Exodus ran from the 3rd April to the 31st May, 1945. It involved the repatriation of liberated Allied POWs from Nazi camps in Europe. Exodus itself was an enormous undertaking, ‘1,000 people per day were brought into British receiving camps; totaling 354,000 ex-prisoners of war by the end of May.’
At 21, Collett piloted a Lancaster bomber full of humanitarian supplies, at low level, with a full crew, on a mission of mercy into occupied Nazi territory. All based on the assurance of Nazi officials who had said that the ‘mercy drop’ would be allowed to proceed without harassment from the well-armed occupying German forces.
Collett is a national hero. Yet, his heroism and the heroism of his crew, isn’t mainstream knowledge in Australia. Even the Australian War Memorial’s official page for Operation Manna, called ‘Food from Heaven’, is silent about the test flight.
For an Australian/s to have played such a significant role in the relief operation, and for there to be little to no recognition of their daring and bravery, shows a real blind spot in how Australians are taught history, and how Australians embrace the importance of knowing what History teaches.
This is something to lament. This is something, we as a society, need to correct. If not for the men and women whose bold shoulders we now stand upon, at least for the generations they saved, in order to pass on the freedoms and responsibilities that allowed their own generation to stand against tyranny, in all its devouring and grotesque forms.
Lest we forget.
References:
[i] Best, N. 2012. Five Days That Shocked The World, Osprey Publishing, (pp.83-85)
[ii] Dando-Collins, S. 2015. Operation Chowdown, St. Martin’s Press (p.119)
*Confusion over Collett’s crew reinforces my point about the lack of historical interest in the Australian contribution to Operation Manna, from Australians. There are contradictory reports from various sources about whether his crew was an all Australian crew, British or mixed British and Australian.
** ‘NX579, No. 101 Sqn. Piloted by F/S Bob Upcott of Windsor, Ontario. Up at 1207, returned at 1444. 274 bags of food dropped. Second aircraft was PB350, No. 101 Sqn. Piloted by P/O Peter Collett of Sydney, Australia. Up at 1215, returned at 1442, 284 bags of food dropped.’ (RAFCommands)
First published on Caldron Pool, 15th December, 2019.
Windmill pic credit: Vishwas Katti on Unsplash
© Rod Lampard, 2019
The speech delivered by Emmanuel Macron, at the Armistice Centenary this week, was a carefully targeted rejection of Donald Trump and his popular platform.
French President Emmanuel Macron remarked that
“The old demons are rising again, ready to complete their task of chaos and of death. Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. In saying, ‘Our interests first, whatever happens to the others’, you erase the most precious thing a nation can have, that which makes it live, that which causes it to be great and that which is most important: its moral values.” [source]
Macron was referring to hyper-nationalist imperialism, regarded as one of the primary causes of WW1. The French leader also alluded to its like minded cousin, which ignited WW2: ethnocentric nationalism and fascist imperialism.
The connection made between the contents of Macron’s speech, and the American leader, are not hard to miss. In October, Donald Trump publicly separated himself from Globalism, and declared himself to be a nationalist.
This also rides on the back of Donald Trump’s speech at the United Nations in September, where he gave a resounding “no” to Globalist Imperialism.
Yet it wasn’t Macron’s remarks about Nationalism, or the inferences behind it that prompted the push back from Trump on Twitter the next day.
The Trump/Macron exchanges are fuelled by the French leader’s claim, made in early November, that Europe needed to protect itself, not just from China and Russia, but also from one of their longest, strongest, and most supportive allies, the United States.
Even German chancellor, Angela Merkel came out in support of Macron, saying
“The times when we could rely on others is past. We have to look at the vision of one day creating a real, true European army.” According to the Guardian, Merkel added that a European Army would be a “compliment to [the largely U.S. tax-payer funded] NATO.”
Via Twitter, Trump gave public criticism of Macron’s claim, stating, that it
‘was very insulting, but perhaps Europe should first pay its fair share of NATO, which the U.S. subsidises greatly!”
In response to Trump’s tweets, Macron shot back with:
“France was a U.S. ally but not a vassal state…at every moment of our history, we were allies, so between allies, respect is due.”
Instead of answering Trump, Macron threw out a red-herring. Avoiding Trump’s question, Macron decided to cheapen American sacrifice, good-will and support for the maintenance of peace and safety in Europe, by reducing America’s relationship with Europe to the context of a Suzerain vassal treaty, where overlords demand fealty.
Macron’s meaning is clear enough: “Americans see themselves as feudal overlords, and have a fascist dictator who seeks to impose his will on Europeans.”
All of which is false, when presented with the facts. Donald Trump’s call for a fairer funding model of NATO, would allow America to roll back its contributions to NATO. By seeking a fairer share of the financial commitment to peace, America is looking to raise others up, not enforce a conqueror-slave dictatorship.
Trump’s frustration is understandable. Based on figures from NATO, American funding is at 22.2%. This is 33% more than Germany, and twice that of Britain and France.
Macron’s advocacy for a European Army built on his premise that Europe needs to protect itself from America, means that The United States would be funding the protection of Europe, while Europe raises an Army against The United States. Trump was right to call this an insult. If member nations of NATO view America as someone they needed an army to protect themselves from, why would the United States continue to fund NATO at its current rate? Why even have an alliance?
Macron’s comments about Nationalism, during the Armistice Centenary, was also a red herring. He invoked the “Trump is Hitler” fallacy, and was predictably applauded for doing so.
It’s worth noting that the very fact Emmanuel Macron still speaks French, and is able to be the President of a nation called France, negates some of what he said about nationalism, and all of what he projected onto the President of the United States and his “Make America Great Again” platform.
For example: France acted in its own national interest when it became one of the few European nations to ban the Niqab; an action that the United Nations [wrongly] considers to be a violation of human rights.
Healthy Nationalism [aka responsible borders[1], rejection of ethno-nationalism, empowering fair trade etc] isn’t a betrayal of patriotism. Surrendering the French people to the rule of unelected Globalist overlords, in the European Union or the Middle East is.
If the European Union, and its unelected bureaucratic caste, is aiming to build an Army at America’s expense, no wonder the President of the United States is frustrated. America’s funding of NATO would be illogical and counter-productive.
During the Armistice Centenary Emmanuel Macron presented himself as a political opportunist. He made himself the centre of attention, drawing attention away from the service and sacrifice of ALL allied soldiers. He made a mockery of the sacrifice of ALL United States service men and women, who’ve paid the ultimate price to liberate Europeans, from the dark grasp of real tyrannical overlords, and their oppressive social Darwinian ideologies.
American blood lies mixed with the blood of Europeans, Canadians and Australians[2] on the sands of Normandy, Utah, Juno, Gold and Sword.
Macron’s appeal to globalism is an appeal to imperialism. If the European Union, and its unelected bureaucratic caste, is aiming to build an Army, under Emmanuel Macron’s premise that Europe needs protecting from the United States, it’s no surprise that Poland would ask the United States to build a military base within its border. Not only does Poland have Russia to its East, Poland is geographically centred right in the middle this growing globalist imperial bureaucracy.
In the words of Historian, Veteran and author, Col. Douglas V. Mastriano:
“Even during the ceremony to commemorate the end of World War I, Macron refused to walk back his statement. If such lack of appreciation and disdain continues to grow against the United States, Europe may just wake up one day and find that America has decided to part ways with them.
Should this happen, a generation of rich, spoiled, and prosperous Europeans like Macron will have to learn the hard way what their grandparents endured but a generation ago. Freedom is not free, and the United States of America is the sole reason for the enduring peace the French have enjoyed.”
The real threat to global security isn’t Donald Trump or his Make America Great Again platform. It’s another “Fortress Europe” defended by an army built by unelected bureaucrats and forced allegiance to their lordship.
References & Notes (not otherwise linked:
[1] Nations cannot protect refugees from the evils that they are fleeing, through multiculturalism and open borders.
[2] 3000 Australians took part in the air assault, a small contingent in the Royal Army and 500 served on board Royal Navy Ships. 14 Australians are known to have died. (source: Australian Department of Veterans Affairs)
Also published at The Caldron Pool, 18th November, 2018 under the heading, French President Emmanuel Macron wants to build a European army to oppose the United States: How Emmanuel Macron used the Armistice Centenary to smear Trump and the memory of dead American soldiers.
Photo credit: Imke van Loon-Martens on Unsplash
©Rod Lampard, 2018
The general reasoning against any sizeable interest in the suffering and pain of Germans in World War Two might go along these lines:
‘’Well, the fact that some Germans suffered horribly doesn’t equal the unnecessary loss and pain their country caused to the Jewish people or the Allies.’’
For obvious reasons, this response isn’t without justification.
However, any discussion about German suffering is avoided with the vigour of a young theologian. Who once confronted with the task of unpacking Karl Barth’s complex rejection of natural theology, quietly sums it up, then stamps it with a Dante-esk ‘abandon all hope – ye who enter here!’
The conversation moves on and the issue is conveniently ignored.
So it is with some difficult primary documents.
They are politely ignored or misappropriated in haste. Sometimes dangerously decontextualised in an attempt to bring the past into agreement with the present[i]. In this case the intellectual method is betrayed and history is abandoned. Either in favour of an ultra-conservative or progressive party-line. Primary documents are for a time effectively written off, partially discounted, misused or conveniently ignored.
The victim? A warts-and-all linear view of history.
Read and received rightly, primary sources show us exactly where, how and when the past can read and inform the present.
Such an undertaking allows us to carefully acknowledge the past with all the seriousness and respect that it rightly deserves.
If allowed to speak as it is, what a primary source can teach us is invaluable. Their contents will challenge comfortable opinions by dragging us into the context. Sometimes even becoming a contradiction to the self-serving and selective views of history so endemic of our time.
For example: Not all Germans were National Socialists. Some even paid the high price of active resistance.
It’s a rare occurrence for those in the English-speaking world to be granted a first-hand insight into the pain, suffering and thoughts of those few Germans who went against the stream during World War Two. Their voice is smothered by the fog of war and their sacrifice forgotten. So when we get the chance to read about it, it’s worth every penny.
Christian Puritz’s 2013: ‘Christ or Hitler?: Stories from my life and times, by Pastor Wilhelm Busch’ is anexample of such rarities:
Pastor Busch and Family, 1943. Just before Wilhelm’s son (centre) left for the Russian front where he died a year later.
Busch’s recount of what resistance was like and what it cost is described by him in his diary:
When my son reached the senior classes in the grammar school he himself wanted to resist the ungodly repression of those days.
He chose his friends from the Bible Circle that I was leading. This work had already been so defamed that only a handful of young people had the courage to swim against the tide and keep coming.
His friends decided one day to disobey the command of the Hitler Youth (to which all young people without exception then had to belong) to assemble on Sundays during the time of the church service. (Church Youth Groups were forbidden by the Gestapo, the Secret State Police)
I never commanded my son to enter my youth work; he just grew into it of his own accord.
My boy decided to do a bicycle tour. He invited his friends. And in the end he said it would be nice if his father came as well…
On one of the tours we made a discovery that shocked us. My boy had a nose bleed which just would not stop. We took him to a hospital and eventually were told: ‘This boy has haemophilia; his blood can’t coagulate.’
And yet later they conscripted him for the war in Russia. I ran to see the army doctor who examined him.
But a pastor who belonged to the ‘Confessing Church’ and who was not ‘standing without reserve behind our beloved Führer’ did not get a hearing.
I can still see the little troop standing on the station. Destination Russia!
They were just children, eighteen years old. I could have screamed when I saw my child marching away, looking so pale. What did this tender artistic soul have to do with an unjust war? He had been caught in a pitiless machine.
Then somewhere in Russia he bled to death. Abandoned and alone! No! Not alone! In his wallet was found a bloodstained scrap of paper with the words:
‘The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want… And though I walk in the dark valley, I fear no evil; for you are with me.[ii]’
It’s true enough that when compared to the suffering of millions under the Nazi reign of terror, this is of little consolation.
However, there is a uniqueness within these first-hand accounts. There is a solidarity of suffering which shows a different side to Germany during World War Two. By their resistance to National Socialist rules, they become an exception to the rule.
Not all Germans were Nazis. There wasn’t a total alignment of Germans towards the totalitarian Fascist state.
This kind of insight is also reflected through the lives of German men and women, such as: Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Theologian), Oskar Schindler (Industrialist), Paul Schneider (Pastor), Claus von Stauffenberg (Soldier), Edith Stein (Feminist/Carmelite Nun), and Sophia Scholl (Student). {Oskar Schindler being the only one on this list to not be murdered by the Fascist State}
. Left to Right: Bonhoeffer, Schneider, . Stauffenberg, Schindler Scholl & Stein
In these cases and the few like them, there is a juxtaposition of those inside the Axis with those outside it.
In their resistance we witness a politics of realignment. The unavoidable and political ”nein” to any state, political party, ideology or politician who lays claim to being a secondary messiah equal to that of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
We are reminded by them, that in Jesus Christ we are turned back towards freedom. In their struggle we are handed the reminder that we may stand, must stand and therefore ought to stand against any stream, scheme or masked revelation that seeks to ‘tame and control the Gospel by adapting it rather than being adapted by it’. (Karl Barth CD.II/I:163)
In 1969, Billy Graham talking with William F. Buckley Jnr. outlined the finer points of dichotomy between the Christian revolution of the heart and all Marxism revolt.
Under Marxist rule the first victim is religious freedom. By their very existence, the genuine Christian, the sinner saved by grace, stands in direct opposition to Communism, because society’s salvation, criticism and hope begins and ends with the freedom and authority of Jesus Christ, not Karl Marx.
The Polish people exemplified this in the early 1980’s, when ‘their hostility towards Communism was demonstrated, not by riots, but by openly showing their allegiance to God…’ [iii]
This pertains to the pursuit of truth vs. political conformity. Where the freedom that gives life to the intellectual method is maintained against any who would seek to enslave it.
Just as
…’the light of eternity shines into the sadness.’ (Pastor Busch) [iv]
insight brings hope.
‘It would be wrong not to lay lessons of the past before the future’[v]
– (Winston S. Churchill, 1948)
References:
[i] For example: the attempt to synthesise Leftism (White Rose Society) with this, (The Historical White Rose Society).
[ii] Puritz, Christian (Trans/Ed.) Christ or Hitler?: Stories from my life and times, by Pastor Wilhelm Busch (1897-1966) (First) Evangelical Press. Kindle Ed.
[iii] Wojtyla, K. cited by O’Sullivan, J. 2006 The President, The Pope & The Prime Minister: Three Who Changed The World Regnery Publishing, Inc.
[iv] Puritz, Ibid.
[iv] Churchill, W. 1948, The Gathering Storm: The Second World War, Vol.1 Houghton Mifflin Company Kindle Ed.
Billy Graham, 1969. The Decline of Christianity, Firing Line, William F. Buckley
YouTube: The Decline of Christianity
Stanford Transcript: The Decline of Christianity
With the start of the new school year we’ve been engineering the tone of homeschool for the rest of the year. So, my focus has been elsewhere. Which means, as far as blog content goes, posts are short and sweet.
Recently, I came across Franklin Roosevelt’s address to the nation on D-Day. One of THE defining military campaigns of the Second World War. (link to full text)
D-Day did more than symbolise a united stand against totalitarianism, it was a just act against blatant evil.
Hence the value of this document: it is both a humble prayer and political speech. Speculation is a cardinal sin for theologians, (or so I was taught), therefore I find myself holding back (with some difficulty) from thinking about how things would have gone if this act of contrition by the then American President had not happened. Looking at the paradigm of today’s political world, it is hard to imagine a prayer like this being deemed permissible.
For this reason: here is one the most powerful leaders in the free world submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. There is no sentimentalism in it that I can see.This is not cultural Christianity parading the veneer of vaguely remembered Sunday School lessons in order to appeal to popular applause.
Underpinning this prayer is the understanding that the human judgement which rightly involved taking action against Nazi aggression and ideology, is itself under divine judgement.
Excluding the word ‘crusade’, Roosevelt is inadvertently preempting the same considerations made by American theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, in 1945:
‘Out of the humility of prayer grows the charity for comrade and foe. The recognition that we all stand under a more ultimate bar of judgement mitigates the fury of our self-righteousness and partly dissolves the wickedness of our dishonest pretensions…
We will therefore not be swollen by pride because others think well of us. We will remember that they do not know the secret of our hearts. Neither will we take their disapproval too seriously. The sense of a more ultimate judgement arms us with the courage to defy the false judgements of the community’ [i]
Both are impressive. Each make a unique contribution to how Jesus Christ, just judgement, Christian love and responsibility are valuable to an evangelical ethic that supports life and reaches out in truth. With the understanding that sometimes “no” is given in order to say “yes”; an ethical framework that every responsible parent knows well and practices daily.
Official & original:
With music and a video montage:
Repost: Originally posted 5th Feb, 2015
Updated 24th May 2017:
.
I’m seeing quite a bit of condemnation being thrown about regarding people offering their prayers for those lost and caught up in the tragedy in Manchester.
I’m in agreement with putting an end to sentimentalism and empty gestures like lightshows and hashtags. Prayer, however, shouldn’t be linked in with this.
There’s nothing wrong with prayer. At the end of the day, it all depends on who they’re directed towards and the motivation behind it. True prayer is preparation for action, not a substitute for it. Prayer is an act of true freedom.
When genuine, it rallies people in shared solidarity against arrogance, towards humility. It is a revolt against complacency, appeasement, disorder and gestures filled only with empty sentiment.
Underpinning F.D.R’s D-Day prayer is the understanding that the human judgement which rightly involved taking action against Nazi aggression and ideology, is itself under divine judgement.
Ditch the sentimentalism and empty gestures, such as hashtags and lightshows. Don’t ditch prayer. For, ‘out of the humility of prayer..we will not be swollen by pride’ [ii] in right response to aggression.
‘Even the ”devils believe and tremble,” and I really believe they are more afraid of the Americans’ prayers than of their swords’
(Abigail Adams, 1775, Letters #55)
References:
[i] Niebuhr, R. 1945 Discerning The Signs of The Times, Niebuhr Press Kindle. Ed.
[ii] ibid, 1945
Image: Mine. I cropped it using the first and last page of the transcript in order to draw attention to it.
Karl Barth never ceases to confound his students or humble our feeble attempts to steer him in a particular political direction. One key example of this is a letter written in December 1939, to ‘The French Protestants’ at the outbreak of World War Two.
His words here are straight from the front, back towards the left and then on towards the right.
Barth is not advocating that the Church take up a “‘crusade’ against Hitler“. Rather that the Church repent and pray for a ‘just peace’. Choosing the better side of responsible action over against irresponsible action or worse, total inaction. Barth is calling for the Church to awaken; to turn from a politics of appeasement and blind compassion, in order to avoid the problems created when both are infused with good, but naïve intentions.
‘It would be regrettable if the Christian Churches, which in previous wars have so often and so thoughtlessly spoken the language of nationalism and militarism, should just in this war equally thoughtlessly decide to adopt the silence of neutrality and pacifism. The Churches to-day should pray in all penitence and sobriety for a just peace…to bear witness to all the world that it is necessary and worth while to fight and suffer for this just peace’
(Barth in Loconte, J (Ed.) The End Of Illusions, 2004:157)
According to Joseph Loconte, Barth lamented the ‘Munich Agreement’ writing in his diary: ‘catastrophe of European liberty in Munich’ ibid:153). Adding in a letter to Czech soldiers that ‘resistance to Hitler, was service to Christ’ (ibid).
Also noting that the partial injustice of 1919, The Treaty of Versailles, made England and France ‘chiefly responsible for the state of affairs which arose in Europe after 1919 – which in turn, as far as Barth sees it, makes them responsible, too, for making Hitler possible’ (ibid:156).
Although Barth prefers the term ‘just peace’, steering away from applying the phrase ‘just war’, he is advocating the latter. For instance: ‘Our generation would be answerable before God and before humanity if the attempt were not made to put an end to the menace of Hitler’. (ibid:156)
Other than reinforcing the important relevance of Barth to contemporary discussions. This letter shows that placing him into an ideological box, in order to serve an understanding of his theology, or using any conclusions drawn from that to advance the defence of utopian illusions or a benevolent ideological master, are deeply flawed. Such as being quick to claim that Barth was a sold-out pacifist.
Since there are parallels between his time and ours.Today’s Church needs to “get this”. It ought not fail to stand against sloppy sentimentalism, popular activism nor fail to act on the warnings which were so powerfully relevant for then, and are just as relevant to us today.
Barth asks:
‘Why have we heard and why do we continue to hear, and that not infrequently, voices of eschatological defeatism, a defeatism which appealing to the truth that “the whole world lies in the evil one,” busies itself almost cynically with asserting that Hitler’s present adversaries for their part are no saints either? The apprehension of the truth that God alone is holy will not excuse us from the duty of putting up resistance to-day.’ (ibid:157)
‘We must be prepared for God, just when we are acting in obedience to His command, to confront us with His own “Il faut en finir,” and again by His command to lead us to something wholly other… Done in this spirit of preparedness, our work of resistance will then be a good work…We are both allowed and obliged to know that God will reign in any case and the He makes no mistakes’ (ibid:161)
Loconte is right: ‘Any serious student of the 1930’s is struck by the familiarity of the debate’. (ibid:3)
Source:
Barth, K. 1939 First Letter to the French Protestants in Loconte, J. (Ed.) 2004 The End of Illusions Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Image: French roughly translated in English as ‘We must/will end it’ or ‘We shall go on to the end.’
(Originally posted Jan. 2015)
