“I’m Offended And That Makes You Wrong”


Many of us who frequent social media will have the dreadful “I’m offended” thrown at us at one point or another. But the question remains of how effective this tactic really is? To understand this we must first understand the various meanings and usages behind this tactic whether they are intentional or not.

What we find so often with the use of the offense taken sentence is that it normally comes when someone wants to go on the attack, someone wants to muster up a defense or when someone wants to do both at the same time. Rarely are these words utilized because someone is just offended and they leave it at that. After all being offended doesn’t mean someone is going to go on the defensive or offensive. At least not inherently anyways. Then that leaves the question of why do it at all if it is rarely used just to be offended?

To answer our above question we need to understand a few things about the people who use this line often. One, we should never misunderstand that being offended doesn’t generate an argument. Two, being offended doesn’t justify being more offensive than the very level of offense that a person is offended by. Three, these types tend to only be offended when it is convenient with a debate being a perfect example. Four, these types of people tend to be offended and use that to justify their world view as if their offended status is a true reflection of everyone else’s experience. And lastly the offended tend to flock in high numbers.

Let us go through each one of those points and see if we can spot the usual suspects:

  1. Christopher Hitchens said it best when he proclaimed that certain people shout, “I’m offended” as if that is an argument. In fact the sentence before this one is almost word for word what the man said. It is true. There are some people who believe that because they are offended that makes them right. Nothing could be further from the truth. One can be offended that the sun can cause blindness if one stares at it for too long. Does that change reality? One can be offended that black people are allowed to exist. Does that make that belief correct? No, it doesn’t and neither does being offended create a rational argument.
  2. Ever notice how a lot of the people who are perpetually offended by something turn around and justify or even engage in material that is far worse by objective comparison? For example there are those who would get offended if someone were to ask a woman to, “smile more.” But as witnessed by the author of this blog in that very same social media posting a person turned around the said that they would make a person lose teeth if they were asked to smile more. Do you see the lunacy in this? How can one be offended by something they deem offensive but then turn around and justify violence for a non-violent gesture? Another good example is how someone will complain about how someone sits on public transit due to rudeness but then turn around and advocate for laws for those people to be ticketed and even arrested for such a trivial offense. These are classic cases, but certainly not all of the cases, where being offended can become a weapon and even a justification for nonsense.
  3. This ties into point number one. Being offended can sometimes be an effective tool and a weapon in a debate. Someone taking offense to words and even statements can essentially erase rational arguments as if they didn’t even exist. Of course this doesn’t work most times because many of us can see right through this particular set of mental gymnastics. The idea is simple. One must be offended, declare it so, cast a label on the person making the statement and with that label comes outright refusal to hear the evidence. It is an effective tactic that is used in politics, social media and from person to person. For example if someone were to criticize a certain religious belief even if that belief has multiple racial identities participating it can be effective to call that person a racist even if it isn’t true or proof cannot be obtained. The reason why this can be effective is that it is a shaming and silencing tool. And believe this tool is standard issue for the perpetually offended.
  4. Finally, we have the, “I’m offended and you should be too” angle. This one is simple. It is not that hard to understand. This is essentially a person proclaiming that because they experienced something or don’t like something that everyone else should care. The problem with that word, “should” is that it is really an anger word. Yes everyone should be a nice person but there are no requirements to be that. Everyone should try not to litter but many of us do it. Should and reality do not mix. So while someone believes everyone should be offended at something that just won’t be the case most times and that is for any issue outside of rape, murder and other very serious crimes. For example if someone is offended at a certain word and don’t care to hear that word uttered by anyone that is that person’s opinion. In reality nobody has to listen or pay any attention to that person for being offended.

So we see where someone shouting that they are offended isn’t just something that is harmless. This is meant to either shut down discussion, shut down discourse, silence people or try to coerce others into being offended or joining a certain label. The tactic tends to work very well. Unlike other tactics if one were to look objectively almost any social group uses this and it is a major recruitment tool for many groups including religion, politics and what have you.

How far does the rabbit hole of horrors go? Let us take a peek into the nonsense and not to claw out our eyes in disgust. Here are a few examples:


Remember this lovely story? Well it is about Tim Hunt who is a Noble Prize winner who was fired after supposed “sexist” comments. Someone got offended and because of that someone got fired. Notable people such as Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox came to Tim Hunt’s defense. As it turns out and despite major media and social media demonizing of Tim Hunt the whole sexism story started to have more holes poked in it than swish cheese being assaulted by an automatic machine gun. But the Twitterverse went to action as soon as the story made waves. People were “offended” even though it is clear that at least 99% of the offended were not even present to know if Tim Hunt committed the offense or not. Remember when I said the perpetually offended tend to flock like birds of a feather? What do you think happened here? This is where being offended can be used as a weapon.


Remember this little gem? Matt Taylor did what many before him thought to be impossible. He landed a man made object on a space object traveling at speeds many of us will never witness even if E.T. landed on Earth tomorrow. The suggestion by this social media posting is that Matt Taylor is contributing to the relative lack of presence of women in STEM fields. So in other words some people got offended by a shirt (made by a woman by the way) and because of that offense attention was taken away from the monumental accomplish of this guy and placed on attire. What is hilariously hypocritical about all this is that the very ideology and social group attached to most of the outrage contain many people who’d say, “violence and crime is not justified by what someone wears.” Yet in a lesser degree they have no problem in reducing a man to tears on live national television because a few people don’t understand that someone has the right to wear what they want with or without their approval.


Now this is where it gets interesting. Similarly to how an army may attack a supplier that may not have anything to do with the actual war this attack on a company is so similar that it is almost sickening to see. Because someone got offended and interpreted a game as “transmisogyny” this person has the nerve to tell someone else what they should or should not back based off of their level of being offended. If this doesn’t represent the greater problem nothing will. Someone being offended is one thing but someone being offended (if they really are or not and aren’t just doing it for attention) should have no bearing on everyone else if others will not be seriously harmed in the process. One really has the burden of proof on them to demonstrate that a video supposedly displaying “transmisogyny” (a term probably coined out of outrage) is going to harm anyone since we known video games have not caused violence or sexism in any conceivable way and we have studies that demonstrate this.


Finally we have the easy way out of the offended and that is by being more offensive. How does one compare over a hundred people losing their lives in a single event to what happened on a college campus where nobody lost their life? Remember the black lives matter movement on the University of Missouri campus? Out of that protest came rap songs titled, “Fuck Paris.” Out of that protest came Asian journalists being harassed and assaulted for being a, “white supremacist” as if the KKK are suddenly taking Asian membership. Out of that protest came students being harassed and one female student in particular being referred to as a, “racist cunt” just for not wanting anything to do with a bunch of people bursting into a library and causing all sorts of ruckus. This is the offended on the attack. Remember when I mentioned how someone could use their offended status to go on the attack with a sword and then use a defense of being “marginalized” or “misunderstood” as a shield? There are few examples better than this.

Now we have a good picture of what shouting, “I’m offended” really means. It just means the person wants to be able to attack without you being able to defend yourself. It also means this person is out of intellectual ammunition and need you to the instigator of your own demise by labeling you something in order to have a weapon against you. Recognize these patterns and overcome this. In order for us to progress as a society in the West we need to recognize and defeat these tactics.


IJ Review

Kung Fu Liu (WordPress Blogger)


Women Required To Register For Selective Service?

Women Required To Register For Selective Service?

By: Dion McNeil

For so long one of the hardest points that men’s rights activists have made that feminists have had a tough time deflecting is the male only draft. Sites like A Voice for Men have beaten that dead horse into the ground over and over again. Nothing about a male only selective service spells out equality. Not a thing about a male only selective service system that has penalties for males over the age of 18 who are not registered suggests a fair system. Of course feminism and women in general had nothing to do with selective service or the draft as it was likely men who imposed this. Yet at the same time if we are going to be honest not having to register for women is an advantage that isn’t to be taken lightly.

Some will say that we haven’t had a draft in the United States for quite some time. What does that matter? Go tell that to the 50 thousand plus dead Vietnam war veterans. In fact it wasn’t until 1973 that the United States converted to an all volunteer force and for that to be the standard until such a time where the draft is needed again. Truth be told the very notion that the US isn’t drafting people, namely men, in modern times is a relatively new phase. From the Vietnam war and above the United States always called on young men to do the fighting and while there were instances of women serving very rarely were that put in harm’s way versus men.

The men’s rights activists probably are shouting joy to the heavens when articles like those found on the Washington Post popped up concerning women and selective service. At least now the idea of having women register just like men have to is starting to get some traction. Gen. Robert B. Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, and Gen. Mark A. Milley, chief of staff of the Army testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. A quote from the Washington Post article reveals some of the details:

““Senator, I think that all eligible and qualified men and women should register for the draft,” said Milley, echoing the remarks of Neller.

After the hearing, Neller added in an short interview that any young American as a rite of passage should have to register for Selective Service.

“Now that the restrictions that exempted women from [combat jobs] don’t exist, then you’re a citizen of a United States,” Neller said. “It doesn’t mean you’re going to serve, but you go register.””

Some who read this will shout, “no, get rid of the draft for everyone!” Where the heck were those people when young men had to go and sign up? Where were they? Now all of a sudden when women are subjected to the same thing that men are suddenly it is a problem? Well yes, it is a problem now. And we know this based off of the responses we are starting to see across the internet. All of a sudden there are voices that are decrying selective service that we didn’t hear from before concerning the subject.

Take the L.A. Times Editorial Board for example. If we look on the LA Times website we can’t find many other mentions of selective service or the draft but the second that women might be subjected to the same thing men had to be subjected to suddenly it is an issue. Observe for yourself:

“Why should the country require anyone — male or female — to register for a draft that’s purely hypothetical? Or this: Does it make sense to extend the Selective Service rule as a symbolic gesture of gender equality without first examining the rationality of maintaining a registry at all in the digital era?”

Take a look at what Elaine Donnelly, president of the center of Military Readiness, said. Keep in mind that as she is saying this men are still being subjected to having to sign up for selective service:

“Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, called the Pentagon’s decision “ill-advised.”  In part, she said, because it will affect “unsuspecting civilian women, who will face equal obligations to register for Selective Service when a future federal court rules in favor of litigation brought by the [American Civil Liberties Union] on behalf of men.””

Some people may ask, “why even care? There’s no penalties for not registering, right?” Listen hard and hear the crickets in the background. Of course there are penalties. All one needs to do is go over to the Selective Service website and see the list of penalties one can face. Take a look at the list:


Men, born after December 31, 1959, who aren’t registered with Selective Service won’t qualify for federal student loans or grant programs. This includes Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), Direct Stafford Loans/Plus Loans, National Direct Student Loans, and College Work Study.


The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) makes registration with Selective Service a condition for U.S. citizenship if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.


The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) offers programs that can train young men seeking vocational employment or enhancing their career. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service. Only men born after December 31, 1959, are required to show proof of registration.


A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and the U.S. Postal Service. Proof of registration is required only for men born after December 31, 1959.  

Security clearance background investigations will verify whether or not men are in compliance with federal law; thus, men who are required to be registered with the Selective Service System will be verified of their Selective Service registration status for security clearances, as well as for some contractors.

Penalties for Failing to Register
Failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same penalties.

If a man fails to register, or provides Selective Service with evidence that he is exempt from the registration requirement, after receiving Selective Service reminder and/or compliance mailings, his name is referred to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution for his failure to register as required by the Act. For clarification, if a man is exempt from registering with the Selective Service System, his name is not forwarded to the Department of Justice. The federal law stipulates that names are to be submitted to the Department of Justice annually.

The more immediate penalty is if a man fails to register before turning 26 years old, even if he is not tried or prosecuted, he may find that some doors are permanently closed.”

Did we read that correctly? Someone could lose their citizenship, not get a student loan, face a prison term, be fined a quarter of a million dollars and if someone were to try to help this man escape having to register for the draft they could face the same penalties? Yes, bring in the draft or get rid of it. Bottom line this is not gender equality and no matter how much someone says, “well men imposed it” is going to take away from the fact that it exists. If this is the level that men have to go to in order to maintain their citizenship then women should either be subjected to the exact same selective service or we need to eradicate and the scrap the whole thing and if there is a draft women should be drafted.

Why should women be drafted should there ever be a draft? Well, of course, some would say that women are not as physically strong as men or as made for combat. However there are some women who don’t fit that generalization. Imagine if a military unit had a team of Holly Holms running around. How many would really oppose the idea of Amazon-esque killing machines running around to cover their backs? But women should register because of a landmark court ruling.

One of the common strawman arguments that some in certain ideologies, feminists in particular, love to hurl at men is that men never fight for their own rights. That is a lie. There were men who did oppose men being forced to have to register for selective service and even the possibility of a male only draft. Rostker v. Goldberg, which was a case argued in front of the United States Supreme Court in March 1981, is proof that there was at least one group of men who tried to end this sexist standard placed on men. However, the attempt to get rid of one of the clear cut gender expectations not imposed on the opposing gender got shot down. Cornell University’s Law School documents it quite well:

“The question of registering women was extensively considered by Congress in hearings held in response to the President’s request for authorization to register women, and its decision to exempt women was not the accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about women. Since Congress thoroughly reconsidered the question of exempting women from the Act in 1980, the Act’s constitutionality need not be considered solely on the basis of the views expressed by Congress in 1948, when the Act was first enacted in its modern form. Congress’ determination that any future draft would be characterized by a need for combat troops was sufficiently supported by testimony adduced at the hearings so that the courts are not free to make their own judgment on the question. And since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress’ decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause. The testimony of executive and military officials before Congress showed that the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than “equity.” The District Court, undertaking an independent evaluation of the evidence, exceeded its authority in ignoring Congress’ conclusions that whatever the need for women for noncombat roles during mobilization, it could be met by volunteers, and that staffing noncombat positions with women during a mobilization would be positively detrimental to the important goal of military flexibility.”

Now, this is a clearly ridiculous ruling and especially considering that the ERA was supposed to protect men and women and was supposed to make it so that there was no legal form of gender discrimination but especially none supported by the United States government. But pay attention to the details outlined by Cornell University’s Law School. Pay attention to that one particular line that says, “And since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress’ decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause.”

Can anyone spot the issue? Well, there is one issue. If this was the ruling then that automatically should mean that women should be forced to register for selective service considering that combat roles are now open for women. No, seriously, that was the ruling. Was it not? If it was good enough to deny that group of men their equal rights under the law and not be forced to sign up with selective service based off of women not being allowed to be in combat roles then it stands to reason that women should now be forced to register just like men are since combat roles are now open. The lesson that should be learned here is that certain feminists and certain people who go crazy with the equality arguments but want to protect women should be careful what they wish for. Those people wanted women in combat roles and now we have it but perhaps this is a true testament to the fact that not every part of being a man is great and glamorous.

We rest our case.


Dion McNeil is a writer for the Soap Box Corner. Dion is a 29 year old stay at home dad who specializes in psychology and social issues. If you have questions leave a comment, share and/or discuss. You can contact Dion via email at phalanxmedia@mail.com and be sure to use that email as much as you like. As always be skeptical, question everything and seek the truth. Thanks for reading!



Equal Rights Amendment


Cornell University Law School

Washington Post

LA Times



A Voice for Men

The Inconvenient Truth About Batteries

The Inconvenient Truth About Batteries

By: Dion McNeil

 Many of us power up our cell phones, use our devices in general and rev up our smart cars. These products are convenient. Lots of people love to indulge in these modern miracles. But very few take the time to ask a simple question, “how innocent is this product?” In this piece we’ll explore just how much human suffering with child labor in particular being a focus goes into providing power for our favorite devices. Perhaps this will make one think twice before going to social media and complaining about human suffering when the very device they’re using to do so could have had a hand in a mining death or two. It’s easy to point fingers at others for buying “blood” products but it isn’t so easy to be honest enough, do the research and see that many of us are apart of the problem in human suffering.

Ever go into a shopping mall or a Walmart to see that convenient Eco-ATM machine? This machine takes in used tablets, music players, cellular devices and so on in exchange for cash. The minuscule amount of money given in exchange for such expensive products isn’t what we need to focus on. Let’s say your product isn’t worthy anything the ATM machine will give a vocal response you can hear that goes a little something like, “you can choose to donate your device to *insert charity here* and many of the devices have precious metals inside of them that can be recycled.” Now that is as vague as one can get. What does Eco-ATM mean by precious metals and where do these metals come from? We think we may have a few answers.

Let’s look at the Democratic Republic of Congo. A huge part of this country’s economy comes directly from back breaking labor. This country is known to harbor precious metals and all sorts of riches which is why, like many African countries, the DRC is continuously exploited. For the purpose of this article we need to locate just how much of this country’s economy is dependent on such back breaking work. If we were to review the United States Department of Labor’s website we find some pretty sickening details. Take a look for yourself:

“In 2014, the Democratic Republic of the Congo made a moderate advancement in efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. The Government took steps to implement a UN-backed action plan to end the recruitment and use of child soldiers, including by convening national and provincial working groups, appointing a presidential adviser on sexual violence and child recruitment, and arresting several individuals on charges of recruiting and using child soldiers. However, children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo continue to engage in child labor, including in domestic work, and in the worst forms of child labor, including in the forced mining of gold, cassiterite (tin ore), coltan (tantalum ore), and wolframite (tungsten ore). The Government failed to prosecute or convict any individual of child labor violations, and the prescribed penalties for forced or compulsory labor remain low and do not serve as a deterrent. There are few social programs to assist child laborers, and laws and regulations mandating free primary education are not enforced.”

So what we have in this country alone is a government that doesn’t appear to be ultimately effective against child labor and exploitation. But how far does it go? Well we known from what the US Department of Labor tells us that this is a prime source of those lovely metals and products that go into our devices. When the inmates run the asylum and when a government fails to enact meaningful countermeasures to thwart child labor it isn’t any wonder why the wolves would become predators here. The worst part about this is that due to the inaction of adults it is the children that will suffer the most as the children of the DRC are by far the easiest to exploit and use for hard labor.

There may be someone asking, “yes, we know what they mine but how do we know those items go into our products?” Good question. Let us take a look at tin ore. If we were to review this lovely piece by The Guardian we start to see it isn’t just the DRC who has issues with this horrific trade:

“There is a chain here: Bangka and Belitung produce 90% of Indonesia’s tin, and Indonesia is the world’s second-largest exporter of the metal. A recentBusinessweek investigation into tin mining in Bangka found that Indonesia’s national tin corporation, PT Timah, supplies companies such as Samsung directly, as well as solder makers Chernan and Shenmao, which in turn supply Foxconn (which manufactures many Apple products). Chernan has also supplied Samsung, Sony and LG. So it is highly likely that the smartphone or tablet you use has Bangkanese tin in it, perhaps mined by Suge or one of the many tens of thousands of men like him, most of whom earn around £5 a day in a local industry that fetches roughly £42m of revenue for Indonesia every year.”

Still think your smart phone is innocent? Of course it isn’t. In just a few paragraphs we went from Africa to Asia and if we looked hard enough there are all sorts of horror stories everywhere. We tried hard to be fair about the issue to see if there was another side but facts are facts. This trade is a direct exploitation of others so that some of us who live in the west can live comfortably. The “Suge” person mentioned from the snippet located in the Guardian piece is an Indonesian man who puts his life on the line everyday to provide tin ore to the world since Indonesia is in fact the world’s second largest exporter of metal just as the Guardian says. The really telling part is that the Indonesian government aren’t a bunch of bumbling idiots who are unaware of this trade. If we were to look at the Indo Metal website we see that not only is the government aware of what is going on but when the trade is so profitable and as long as the demand is so high what is the motivation for change? Don’t say, “because it’s the right thing to do” as we all know the politicians and powers that be in Indonesia have long sold their souls in exchange for lined pockets of money.

Still not feeling the human suffering part as we only exposed one type of metal? Don’t worry. You’ll be feeling bad soon enough as we go on to the next metal in tantalum ore. If we were to look at this IPS News piece featuring the words of Jean-Bertin, a 34 year old man who acts as a Congolese activist we begin to see the true scope of the problem. “It’s possible that two children died so that you could have that mobile phone,” Jean-Bertin said. What is even more troubling is the idea that the DRC government already tries to penalize such exploitation of child labor but isn’t doing enough. Not only is the DRC government not doing enough to protect these children but according to the Child Soldiers website it wasn’t too long ago that the DRC didn’t explicitly outlaw children being used as soldiers until 2012 when the DRC government and the UN signed an action plan to end such practices. With that in mind who the hell would honestly believe this government gives a damn about children being exploited for darn near slave labor? One would have to require a serious mental health evaluation to actually believe the DRC government actually gives a damn given their history as recent as only four years ago.

Let us go to the final metal mentioned for the US Department of Labor report which is tungsten ore. We find tungsten in all sorts of products from electronics to jewelry. Many of us know what blood diamonds are as even celebrities like Kanye West, no matter if you like him or not, have pointed this out. But Tungsten can be excavated much easier than a diamond, the trade flies under the radar quite often and even if the trade is discovered places like the DRC will do little to nothing to stop it or do anything meaningful beyond saving face. How bad is the problem? Let us consult some sources to see if we can spot some issues here.

See the picture to the left with the men who are digging through mud? Well that picture comes from News Week as we see this problem is very serious. Look at this snippet from that article:

“Experts note the widespread smuggling of ore across porous borders in areas racked by conflict, with scarce paper trails for ore mined by villagers in small artisanal mines in countries where warlords control exports. Moreover, audit procedures at smelters in China and Russia are opaque and vulnerable to corruption. “We’re concerned that the audit procedures are not as transparent as they should be,” says Sasha Lezhnev, who oversees DRC conflict minerals issues at the Enough Project, part of the Center for American Progress think tank.

The disclosure by Apple, which just reported the largest quarterly profit of any company in corporate history, was unusual in that it went beyond a new regulation passed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2012 under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulation act. That new rule requires U.S. publicly traded companies to audit their supply chains and disclose any use of conflict minerals—but not the names of smelters, as Apple did.”

What do we notice about all of this? Apple is one of the most technologically advanced companies on the planet and even they couldn’t spot human suffering in their products until they actually went beyond the legal requirements. Do we really expect all companies will do this? Kudos to Apple for at least trying. But if they, like other companies, are not legally required to name smelters then how do we really track where these materials come from? Everyone who knows anything about metals would know that a smelter is required for such a wide area of trade with such wild profit margins. But it appears that the United States government hasn’t gone far enough, namely, requiring companies to not only audit their supply chains and reveal minerals that may be of the conflict variety but to do everything possible to reveal where those materials came from and who is responsible, if they are conflict minerals, to name the individual(s) responsible. This isn’t an appeal to emotion. There are quite literally lives on the line here.

There will be more articles about this in the future but this is just a first round exposure. If you are using electronic devices then it is the duty of bloggers, writers, journalists and just the everyday person to try to expose the truth. The solutions are simple. Contact your congressman, any politician, write about this, talk about this, go to social media and raise hell. Sure it seems tough to care when our devices make our lives so much more convenient but think about those who are dying as a result. It is not impossible to enjoy your Samsung Galaxy and demand that human rights be respected at the same time. We should all strive for a world where the demand of a product does not demand the blood of our brothers and sisters.

Thanks for reading!


Dion is a writer for the Soap Box Corner. Dion is a 29 year old stay at home dad who specializes in social issues and psychology. If you’d like to contact Dion do so at phalanxmedia@mail.com or comment here. Please comment, share and discuss the topics. As always we hope you enjoyed reading this piece and encourage you to be skeptical, question everything and above all else seek the truth.



News Week


Child Soldiers

Kanye West

IPS News

The United States Department of Labor

West Valley Library

Indo Metal

The Guardian


Serious Start Ups