So, General, we want to deeply thank you for joining us for this session. And I thought, and the General needs no introduction, I'm going to do like Tom Ricks and actually save our time for conversation rather than restating your amazing bio. And I thought a way to open up the conversation would be to ask how that bio might, you hope, read ten years from now. And by that, when some future historian is writing about this period, what is one primary sort of policy goal that you hope they note about your bio over the next ten years? What's the, in many ways, kind of what, how will a future historian, you hope, write your legacy over this period that you're leading in? That's a difficult question. But some guy that nobody thought was going to be the commandant came in, replaced an incredibly popular officer who went on to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and he had these ideas about how the force should be formed and trained and educated, and that there was a way to leverage technology to operational advantage, and that through a lot of coordination and cooperation and salesmanship he was able to convince the force that if they didn't change they were not going to be successful in the future, and that the collective changes that were made have resulted in a Marine Corps that still has utility and capability for the nation in the future, and continues to be the nation's force and readiness and rapid response force. So if that's the hope, what's the nightmare scenario? What's the scenario that keeps you up at night when you think about the future of war? What's the discussion so far that's touched on everything from geographic problems, Syria, Ukraine, to major trends that range from new technologies to open source intelligence? When you pull back, when you worry, what keeps you up at night? I think we know what to do. I think talking to the other service chiefs, talking to General Milley, and I mean we've all served together and known each other, and one of the interesting things for the last 15 years of war, there's very, very few of us who haven't been with each other somewhere else in a much less nice place than this beautiful room on a beautiful sunshiney day. I think we need a war in France again, really, is what I'm saying. You all just got your tweetable moment there. Not that I would wish that on the French people, but that we can't do what we need to do fast enough, that we can't adapt fast enough, that we can't figure out a way to be agile and flexible enough, and that we can take the technologies that are out there or that we don't even know about, but when they appear, adapt them for the use of at least a portion of the force. I think history will tell you, there's no way you're always in a transition. You look at any military over history, and there's always a part of the force that's got the newer capability that everybody else is waiting, so you're always going to fight a modernized slash legacy force. I think the goal is, my concern is, is that our potential adversaries are going fast because they have a different system to be able to do that, and we're not going to be able to... Can you flesh that out, a different system? Well, just the way they acquire their equipment, the funding stream that they have, I mean, we're expensive. I mean, $600 billion is a lot of money, and we, you know, for the Marine Corps, almost 70% of our budget goes to pay for people. So the money left for acquisition, for training, for education, even though education is probably the cheapest way to maintain your effectiveness. And just some of the rules, I think General Milley talked today about how long it's going to take to, you know, get a pistol. I mean, I went in the AFIS over at Balling, and there's like a Chinese-made DJI quadcopter right there as a Christmas present. I mean, I'd get arrested if I flew it in the district, but for $500 with a camera. So why didn't every rifle squad have one of those things? And if it breaks, it's $500. So we've bought these things, and we're going to go give them to an infantry battalion, and we're going to go fly them around in the next year. But then you'll have to bid it. You'll have to be some test and evaluation. I mean, I can go on Groupon and buy one for $100 today with a camera. Probably doesn't fly very far, very long. So I mean, that's the thing that concerns me is just we've got to go faster. So we were actually having this conversation, both down in Quantico, but also at lunch today with a different group. And it was how, when there's something available on the open market, like you just gave the example of, and the military's not providing it, you often see people use it anyway. So the example in Iraq War 2.0 would be GPS wasn't pushed down all the way to say the platoon level, and people ended up bringing their own to we had that happen with body armor. We had that happen with the camelbacks. Do you think that might happen with this kind of technology? If we're not pushing, if we're not able to get it out to forces, well, they say, guess what, I've got it at home. I'm going to bring it anyway. Is that a fear? Is that a positive thing? I think it's both. I remember the body armor thing. There were people that didn't believe that the body armor we had was effective even though I was very confident there was, because I talked to enough Marines that got shot in the body armor and they walked away unscathed. We still have parents because they read something that what we were buying wasn't good. And you hate to see people waste their money out of their concern to take care of their Marine soldier or sailor airman. But I think all the leadership, we've just got to be more open to this and figure out a way to move faster. I mean, the urgent uns and the joint universal needs statement and the process that we developed in OIF and OEF, I think that helped us go faster. I give you an example. I mean, we developed the Marine forces in AMBAR, developed mine rollers in four months. We had an idea. We told a bunch of guys that the logistics group and the CBs, Monster Garage, you got one week, make mine rollers. I got pictures. I'll show them to you. And we got a design. We sent it back. They built one. They sent it back. We said, make more. And then the contractors found out about it and they started making them. But until June of 2006, there were no mine rollers on the battlefield. And now they're just in that particular environment where you have IUDs. And then we did it because we knew the enemy was going to adapt. We knew that we were going to jam them and so they're going to go to pressure. And so we had to have something to beat pressure. And we did. And so now it becomes that the in and the yang they give and the take on the battlefield that probably will never go away. But you're always trying to be the one that drives the tempo to make the adversary change to your capability, not vice versa. So let's move forward 10 years. It's the year 2026. How does the Marine Corps look? And I want to break it down in different areas. How is it handling recruiting and retention the same? How is it handling it different? I think fundamentally the Marine Corps will be similar in organization. We'll have a ground combat element of infantry, artillery and some sort of armor protected mobility. We'll have to have some logistical sustainment and we'll have an aviation piece. Now the difference I think is going to be what's in those things. How many Marines are actually in the infantry as opposed to how many Marines are now involved in communications, intelligence, information warfare, electronic warfare, cyber? How many of those aircraft will be manned and unmanned? How many of those vehicles will be driven by human beings or driven robotically? How we deliver the stuff? How many, where do we get our parts? Do we have a big parts block? Are we printing our own parts? So again, I don't know how fast, if you believe Moore's law applies to all these other technologies and you're going to get this every 18 to 24 months, you're going to get this big change and the curve continues to go up, that could happen faster, maybe it happened faster than we think. So I think we'll still be an air ground task force. We'll still come from the sea. I think we'll have to be able to operate in a more distributive manner. I think that they're going to interrupt there. That's an organization question. So the MAGTAF, the size of the units within it, how they're organized, how they're structured, will they look the same, will they be different? So if you look at the, for example, the Army with ground forces, looking backwards, we saw the shift from divisions to brigade. What about within the Marine Corps in this period? Do you envision that kind of all the way down to maybe the fire team level? Well, I think the base unit for the Army is the brigade, today's brigade combat team. For us, it's a battalion. I think it's going to end up being some sort of a reinforced company, infantry company with enhanced communications and capabilities that they'll be able to do, because they're going to be distributed across the battlefield, assuming that we can protect the grid and we can still communicate, because if we can communicate with them, we can still deliver fires and support of them or deliver logistics and support of them. So I think you're going to see things that, I mean, it happened in the last war and it had a lot to do with just the way we were distributed across the force. So we had sergeants doing what lieutenants did and lieutenants doing what majors did and majors doing what colonels did and colonels doing what generals did and generals being political, Palm Hill coordinators with coalition forces and the tribes and all that stuff. I mean, it was, but that was the nature of that fight. So I think everything will get pushed down because we have the capability to do that and then the question is, are we going to be able to, is the network, which I think is both our critical vulnerability and our friendly center of gravity, that thing we have to protect, is that going to be there? And we haven't had to worry about that for the last 15 years, because no one was threatening the network. Now we have to worry about that, because there are those out there that we could end up becoming involved with have certainly other capability to take the things today that we take for granted. I mean, we're talking a couple of army officers in the back and I mean, they've grown up in an environment where they walk into the operations center, they turn on all the computers are running, they all got beautiful, you know, LED flat screens, they have perfect knowledge, they got an unlimited bandwidth, but they're not moving, they're stationary. If we're going to go back to being, fight a war maneuver, which I think is highly probable, whether it's on land or the sea or even in the air, you're going to have to be able to pick that stuff and take it with you. And as the communication is going to be there, are the weapons that rely on GPS or some other space-based navigational system to give you the precision that we've taken for granted now, is it going to be there? So that's where I think we're going to go, it's all going to get pushed down, assuming that we can protect the thing that we need to protect. All of those pressures leads to something that I know you're very passionate about, is it leads to new challenges of leadership. So the officers that have grown up in a world where all the data is at their fingertips and what happens when it goes away or what happens to the unit that has GPS that now needs to navigate on its own. So what does that lead to the training in the year 2026 or leading up to it? Or how will professional military education need to evolve? If you could see one change that should happen to prepare officers for that period, what would you like to see happen? Well, to me, you educate for the future and you train for the current fight. So education is what allows you hopefully the intellectual agility and flexibility to if you go somewhere and it isn't the way you thought it was going to be when you got there, you're able to see that it's, well, this isn't exactly what I thought it was going to be and now we have to change to this. On the training side, I think we've already started, I think we've all recognized, and again, I can't, I mean, my focus is more on the naval force, but I think even in the Army, because interesting thing about your Marine Corps is we are kind of a joint force and we've got our own fixed wing and rotor wing aviation, we've got our own ground combat element, we've got command and control, we're part of a naval force. So we think organizationally we're in a good place. What's in that? So I think for training though, I think we already realized and it's already started, units have gone out done an exercise and they just unplug. It's okay, it's gone. No net, what are you gonna do now? Still got radios, you know, HF works good. I was in Albany, Georgia at our logistics base yesterday and they were fixing the Track 170, which is a terrestrial band, you know, data moving things, Skywave, it's probably pretty hard to jam that. And then they've 400% improvement on the bandwidth on that capability and all the services have had this. You know, one thing we've fought is we've, part of that bandwidth that we've had has been lost to commercial applications so we're always fighting to maintain that bandwidth, which is a whole other problem. But things like that, so there you get into the dilemma, how much of this kind of legacy stuff that you have a certain amount of confidence in, do you keep and spend money on and maintain it and train on it and how much do you go into, you know, space, cyber, network-based applications. And so that becomes a training issue because it becomes a time and space thing. So I just think we have to be prepared, we can't assume that the things that we've assumed in the last 15 years are gonna be there and we have to anticipate. We have to think more about other capabilities that could be applied against us. So this is gonna be a different kind of session than some of the ones we've seen and he's very kindly agreed to this. So one of the areas that we've provided here is the polling, where we've asked you questions. Everyone's looking down and getting ready to poll. It's actually, you're not gonna answer. He's gonna answer the polling questions. Did I agree to that? Yeah, and so, but he's gonna give the chance to explain his answer. So there are multiple choice questions and this is not a presidential debate. You actually do have to answer. You have to choose one of them. So the first question is we've asked people to weigh in essentially on issues of national security to the United States. And between A, Russia, B, China, C, Iran, D, terrorism, E, cyber, and F, climate change, which doesn't get sufficient attention? Which should we put more resources, more planning, more effort into? You want me to answer that? Yes. So, Russia, China. Cyber. Cyber, why? I think we have a lot of capabilities but it's very difficult in a Western democratic, liberal society to, at least at the present time, accept some restrictions on your ability to do things because we're the part of the network that's kind of the false promises that we're all gonna use it for the right reasons and it's all gonna be out there and it's gonna make us, come bring us closer together and the world would be a better place. But the truth is that there are, it's probably true to a certain degree but it's also become a place where people that would do us harm would take advantage of our values and our culture to do us harm. So I worry about the fact that, things that we take for granted, like the fact that the lights are on in here or that water's gonna be clean or the power's gonna work or the traffic lights or the banking system are gonna be there because we have a certain expectation for that. Again, it goes back to the network. The other ones are all legitimate problems but that's the one I worry about because we're conflicted. No one wants to deny anybody their rights under the Constitution of the United States but there's a certain point where, look at the discussion now about Apple and the encryption on the phone. That's kind of, I'm not gonna weigh in either way on that but I think that's kind of the poster child for this whole discussion. So that actually leads to one of the other questions that they were just asked which was will a cyber attack result in a human death in the next year? And I believe the results if you could pull up the polling, I believe 59 or 69% of the folks in this room said yes or you can bring the polling up but what about your thoughts on, will we see cyber attack moving not just kinetic but actually lethal? Well, we have to stay in the unclass area here. I mean, is bullying another human being on the network of cyber attack? Has that not caused the death of innocent people? As far as in a nation against the United States, I don't know. Again, I think I don't know what I don't know. I know Admiral Rogers and I know a little bit about what his organization does and I know they're working really hard just like everybody else is to make sure that the network is reliable and safe and that it doesn't cause the death of somebody. I think I wouldn't say it couldn't happen but I'm more concerned about something on a larger scale. Where some major capability gets shut down by some entity out there that would wanna do the United States harm. So one of the other questions, we had a very active panel on this. In 10 years when it comes to the reporting of war, do you think it'll be coming from reporters, A, reporters with independent media organizations, B, reporters with state-sponsored organizations, C, individuals with some kind of personal technology, i.e. social media who are civilians, or D, combatants themselves with blogs and their own social media? I think the answer is all of the above and we're already there. It's already happening now as we speak. I mean, a perfect example of a nation using information I guess would be Russia, TV station, Russia today. Anybody seen that? It's wonderful. It's very well done. I was in UK last year and I was watching it and they were interviewing a allegedly an American citizen who had been rescued from Yemen by the Russian Navy and this individual was opining about the fact that her country had not been there and we're gonna thank goodness for the great support of the Russian Navy to rescue me from this terrible place that my nation left me alone in. It's not a lie if you believe it. I mean, it was very powerful. So if you take whatever you wanna call the facts and turn them multiple ways, then that becomes the story. Having people on the battlefield report, having individual combatants report, I think ISIL is very, very effective in their narratives and the information that they use to both recruit and to send their message and to either anger, intimidate or whatever they're trying to do, the rest of us. So the fact that we have these communication devices and we have the network, I think it's not gonna be like you get a bunch of print reporters in the room before the landing on D-Day and say, okay, this is where we're gonna go but don't write this in the newspaper. What about Marines telling their own stories via blogs, via social media? We had, today we had both, we sort of saw the two sides of this. On one hand, someone talking about how Russian soldiers gave away their role in operations. On the other hand, we had a U.S. Army officer who runs arguably the most popular Army blog. I think it depends on what they're talking about. If it's current ops or things that they're involved in, I think it becomes an ops occasion. Officers wanna write about what they're doing and show their ideas but think about it. So somebody writes an article about this is how we address the IED threat when we were in this country and here's how our vehicles were organized and here's our formation and here's how far apart we were and here's the networks we talked on and here's what we did when we found an IED and I read these things. And the individual, they don't mean any harm. They're trying to educate and inform the rest of the force but anybody else reading that says okay, so I know exactly how they're gonna show up when they come to get this IED and it gives them operational advantage. So you don't wanna inhibit academia and the development of ideas and the training but at the same time, you gotta be smart about what you do. People put a lot of stuff on social media. Simple things like casualties, casualty reporting.  It's either incomplete or inaccurate or both. And so if people are allowed to do that, it makes it more difficult to get the accurate information.  I was talking to Fleet Forces Command Commander and they know the Navy is back. All of us were kind of back to the future and there's enough people in here looking around probably served during the Cold War where we used to go to the field and we practiced not talking on the radio and figuring out how to deceive the enemy or changing our frequency or just going dark on the net using analog things. So, you know, people are back to doing that. How do I mask myself? How do I hide in plain sight? But yet if all our soldiers, sailor, airmen, marines, they're on ship and the ship's turned off the radar, they're not transmitting but someone goes out on the weather deck with their smartphone to check their Facebook page. And then they've got, is this the, and then the little thing pops up. Is this the location you'd like me to identify you with? Yeah, yeah, I'm on board the USS Neversale. Yeah, I'm right here, I'm out in the middle of the ocean so tell everybody in the world where I am. And we haven't, I mean we're actually having a conversation about this. So does that mean when we deploy or we go to the field or we cross a line or parts of everybody, the first sergeant or the gunning comes by with a box and picks up all our cell phones? Yes. Yes it does. You mean I'm gonna be gone for an undetermined period of time and I can't check my Facebook page? Yeah, pretty much. Pretty much. So, I mean, I am being somewhat facetious but I am deadly serious because it is a deadly serious issue. And we've gotta get a little bit harder on this because as I've told the Marines and everybody else, you know your military, your US, we're not a bronze, silver, metal force. It's gold or don't come home. And that's what you expect, that's what your pan is for. So I'm gonna, we're gonna go get the gold or come home on our shield. And we're gonna do whatever we gotta do to make that happen. So appropriate to this last question of social media, the other thing that the generals kindly and bravely agree to do is to go through a Twitter lightning round. So what I've done is collect questions from Twitter and he will give quick tweetable answers to them. So basically try and keep them to one sentence if you can and so we're just gonna blast through several of these before we open up to the audience here. So the first is from at S. Cheney Peters, who asks, what does the future look like for US Marine Corps operating from USN, US Navy platforms? Any tech developments that would cause a rethink? I think we're always looking at how we're gonna do it different. And we wanna do it the way we do it now better but we may have to look at how we do it different, how we array the force. Okay, at Kevin, sorry, Kevin Barron is sitting here but at Defense Barron asks, if the GWAT is drones and soft, what is USMC role? Are you being left out, good or bad thing? I don't think we're being left out. We see ourselves as an enabler and we think we're soft's best partner and we've been a good partner in a lot of things that you probably just don't know about. All right. At John McCrae, the second I.I. What parts of the MAGTF will eventually become autonomous and what advantage will that provide? I think probably the logistics will be the first one to go where there's more less human involvement and more autonomy and man-machine interface. Okay, at Spawn of Khan, James Griffin asks, essentially about the scale of amphibious operations that you expect in the future. The odds are most will be small across the range of military operations but I would never discount the possibility of a large multiple brigade landing. A scenario in a certain book. I've made you a lot of money on that book. We were joking about this. No royalties by the way, I'm just saying. We were joking about this that you had a very, very kind quote saying every marine should buy ghost fleet and I can tell you that that is the one order they have not followed. Okay, so. So much for being the commentator. From at Jersey Cyber, how will the Corps recruit and retain cyber talent without sacrificing its amphibious brand? I don't see them as separate. We're working hard and talking to Marines. There's a lot of interest. Marines don't come in one model type series. There's enough Marines out there and there are enough young men and women in the country that wanna serve their country as Marines that will have the capability we need. This links a little bit to a prior question. At David M. Shield asks, how will technology like autonomous robots and AI change the way the USMC fights? So you talked about logistics. How does it move into the fighting side? You know, we were talking earlier. I think you have to see the battlefield and in the past you had to see it with the human eye. I think now you're gonna be able to see it with the machine's eye and then not put the human at risk until you need to. Okay, and this is Twitter. So this one was from atcharlie underscore Simpson who asked, why are Marine uniforms so much better than all the other services? Yes. Yes. All right. So with that, let's open it up to all of you. If you could raise your hand and wait for the mic to come to you and stand and introduce yourself. So let's go right over here on the left. And one last thing, every question ends with a question mark. General, I'm David Wood with New America and The Huffington Post. Just to follow up on the Twitter question about recruiting, as you move more into distributed operations and more technologically advanced support functions, are you re-looking at who you recruit? And for example, are you thinking about selecting older people and doing some kind of screening for technological experience and knowledge? We realized that we needed to take a look at who we brought in. I mean, the first thing when we recruited, we find out that the individual wants to be a Marine. That's the first thing. So you want to be a Marine then we'll figure out what their talents and their skills are. And so we have a very bright, smart force but the first thing is they're gonna be able to be a Marine. Looking for the skills and the intellect and the resiliency and the discipline to do these things. We normally find enough of that residually in the force. So going to like Marfor Cyber is kind of like going to Marsock. We're gonna go out and we're gonna give a screen test, they're gonna do a different test and we'll have a profile of what that person looks like. And so far, we're gonna make our numbers. There's a group of Quantico right now looking at the entire organization of the Marine Corps to determine what capabilities and in what number we're gonna need in 2025. So we know we need cyber Marines and calm Marines and Intel analysts, how many more? So that might change kind of the MOSes that we give and there are certain criteria that go with that. So right now we're able to find them. The harder part's keeping them. And so once they make it, because these are very smart young men and women and they've got a skill set that's available out there that's very marketable in the civilian world. So I'm not as worried about finding them as I am about once we get them trained up as keeping them. But in talking to them goes back to the first point. They join to be Marines. They love to be Marines. So long as we can keep them engaged doing stuff that they enjoy, they're happy to stay at a Marine Corps. Let's give someone on this side a chance. Gotta go with the boss in the front. New America and General Nellers. Thank you so much for coming. I'm mindful of one of the lead characters in Ghostly. I wanna go back to the 2026 projection and ask you what percentage of the Marine Corps will be women. Right now we're about seven and a half, eight percent. I've told the recruiters to go get us to 10. After that, again, it becomes a capacity. It becomes almost a, you know, we have so much capacity down at Parris Island so I have to look at that. But I think it's gonna be 10 or higher. Doing, I mean, we've got great female Marines and they provide a tremendous capability of the force and I wanna put them in a position where they can best take advantage of the skills and sets that they bring to the organization. So the decisions that have been made have given opportunity for us to put women in places they weren't before. And I'm pretty confident in a lot of those areas that's gonna make us a better force. So as that's opened up, it's logical that we need to increase the number of women. So we'll see if we can recruit them. I think we can. And then it goes back to any other Marine that's talented and we have to be able to keep them, we have to keep them all. I mean, we turn over, I know we recruit 32, 33,000 Marines a year and every year we have to retain about a quarter of them to keep the grade shape. And we're a very young force. We got eight Marines for every officer. 60% of the Marine Corps under the age of 25. So that's why, you know, God love them. You know, it's what makes us, gives us the capability we have and sometimes gives us some of the issues that we have. But they're doing a great job and I'm very honored and proud to try to do my part here and after 40 years. What a lot of people may not know about you is you have a master's in human resources management. Let's sit that question a little bit further beyond just recruitment on the retention side. What's something that you wanna see that you're putting effort into changing in this period? Retention hasn't been a problem the last few years because quite frankly, Marines, we were concerned about the number of deployments but actually the deployments actually helped retention because nobody joins the Marine Corps to sit on their seabag at Camp Lejeune or Camp Pendleton. The career force is a little different and they're more mature. They have families and all that but they still, they wanna stay in the Marine Corps. So I think as far as retention, we have to target it if it takes, there's a lot of different tools. Some of it may be monetary, some of it may be benefits, some of it may be duty station. I think we have to be a little more artful and moving people for the right reason from coast to coast and around the world. The demographics changed. A lot of spouses work, have their own career. I don't like, there's a lot of Marines that are geographically bachelors or bachelorettes. I don't like to see that because when you're married, you're supposed to be with your family. So those are issues. We're gonna work through that. Education I think is a big benefit that people are looking for for the particularly young generation. They just wanna be able to better themselves. And so some of the force of the future stuff that Secretary Carter has put forward of interest, particularly the education piece in the fellowships I think give people a break and then bring them back and put them out there and let them do their business. Let's get a question from someone in the back right there. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. So I wanted to get your opinion on how we can better integrate the Navy and the Marine Corps so as to improve our amphibious and naval capabilities for future conflict. The CNO and I have talked about this and we're working on this together with them because quite frankly the last 15 years we've, I mean we're part of the naval force but we've been operating primarily ashore. We've deployed Marine Expeditionary Units on ship. In fact there's three underway today. You'll see in the news here coming up in the next couple of days if the weather cooperates there'll be a fairly substantial amphibious exercise on the Korean Peninsula as part of an exercise there. But you know we've, the Navy has done, they've done what they've done with carriers and we've done it done what we've done with amphibs and then what we haven't done is fight as a naval force. We've done it in our history, in World War II probably the last time we actually put the whole thing together because there's no way that any Marine landing force is gonna land on an objective unless the Navy is there to help set the conditions to allow that landing force to land, to establish air and maritime superiority to clear the mines and all that. And there's quite frankly I think the fleet needs the embarked Marines and the capabilities they bring to help do sea control and get them, get the whole force to the landing force. So in exercises that have started back in 2012 with bold alligator you will see and they're gonna continue to see more and more fleet-like operations where we take advantage of the capabilities that both the Navy and the Marine Corps bring together to operate as a naval force. Part of the other thing we're looking at is do we have the right mix of Navy officers and Marine staffs and Marine officers on Navy staffs so that we get this cross-fertilization and discussion about how we can best leverage each other's capabilities and fight more effectively as a naval force? Is there a question over here? Okay, right there, yeah. Thank you very much. General Paul Joyle from NSI. My question concerns going dark. Russia is developing EMP weapons, sophisticated electronic warfare systems. What do we have to counter that? Both from an offensive and a defensive standpoint. We're also using some of that equipment in Ukraine and Syria to jam GPS, battlefield communications and other cell phones, et cetera. So please elaborate. It actually got dropped on my desk today by our intel guys, tactical kind of a briefsheet on what those capabilities are and what they've been using. So I mean, it's not rocket science we used to do it.  A lot of it goes back to leadership and mission type orders so the commanders understand the intent, the ability to, everybody likes looking at the 10 digit GPS grid but you're gonna have to have a map in your pocket and a compass and a red lens flashlight and so there's some things you can do that are pretty simple physical things to protect yourself. But what I was telling Peter before, I think it's, you always wanna have, you wanna be able to see the battlefield, you wanna be able to move with speed and you wanna have some sort of deception or surprise and I think it's gonna become increasingly more difficult as long as the network stays up unless you wanna deny it to your adversary but then they can deny it to you to have that happen. I think, you used to be able to get it, the surprise would go, ships sail, okay, where did they go?  So it's gonna be more difficult. So I don't, we could get in it without getting into classification, I think there's just some physical, simple tactics and techniques and procedures that we need to get back into that we used to do. We've talked to the Ukrainians, they've given us some ideas and it goes back to some of the acquisition of using radars and using electronic warfare, jamming and other things that are gonna be available in some of our future systems. Doesn't mean I think we're gonna have to train it. You're gonna have to train it. We used to have at 29 Pauls, we got to a large maneuver exercise out there. We have an organization in the Marine Corps called Radio Battalion and they do a number of things using electromagnetic spectrum and they used to go out there and play the op for and they would, sometimes they just jam you, sometimes they try to use imitated deception. We assume our encryption is gonna work. We need to go out and have somebody with a comparable adversarial capability out there whether they're on a cyber range or communicators or somebody out there and contest us because we haven't been contested and we'll figure it out. So there's the quote from, that's attributed to Mark Twain that history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes and I know you have a deep interest in history so what period in history and maybe more specifically what Marines in history do you look to as guideposts to the future of war? You know the World War II experience that the Marine Corps had with the Navy in the Pacific you know where our opponent at that time occupied a bunch of islands and established kind of a network of security is kind of interesting to study and look at and that's where the Marine Corps mission to seize and secure advanced naval bases for further prosecution of the naval campaign. So I've been reading about that, about Marines in amphibious war. I've looked to people like General Lejeune for the education of the Marine Corps after World War I where he realized that we had to continue to develop the force and that the war that they had just fought in France was not going to be the next war and they started a number of experiments. You know the fleet exercises and came up with amphibious doctrine. You know we don't have the benefit of an interwar period because the deployment tempo is as high as it was when we were full up in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we're going to take a unit and we're going to go out and experiment and give them some of the capabilities and see how it goes. And I think the most effective part of that will be given the capabilities to young Marine officers and Marines and let them tell us, does this give them operational advantage or not? So the history is, I think there's a lot of people who've even further back in Marines that I think if you read the history, people who are military innovators like Scipio-Africanus and not to get crazy here but or even Genghis Khan about maneuver and how to maneuver across the battle space, how to communicate, how to take other people's ideas and make them your own. So I don't claim to be an expert but I think most Marines, most military professionals I met are big historians and like to read history. Because you want to learn something new, read an old book. Well, General, you have been incredibly kind and gracious to take our varied questions and varied forms to join us today. We very much appreciate it and all that you do for the nation. So please join me in a round of applause.


Welcome back to a new session on dentistry and mode. Today's topic is Epstein pearls and bonds nodules. They are seen commonly in newborns oral cavity as some cystic lesions and it is often mistaken as neonatal teeth but actually it is not neonatal teeth. So let's move on to Epstein pearls. They are keratin filled cystic lesions which are seen on mid-palatal graphite at the junction of soft and hard palate. So they are keratin filled cystic lesions mostly seen on the mid-palatin graphite and there is no mucosa gland and which is lined by stratified scomas epithelium but whereas bone nodules which are remnants of salivary gland on buccal and lingual mucosa or hard palate away from the raffae. Epstein pearls are exactly at the mid-lane raffae. This is away from raffae but seen on buccal and lingual mucosa and which is mostly seen on labelled aspect of upper alveolar ridge. The Epstein pearls are 1 to 3 millimeter size and why this is happening is because of the epithelial tissues trapped between the palate during fusion. So palatal fusion, soft and hard palatal fusion, so the epithelial tissue get entrapped and it becomes a cystic lesion mostly the stratified scomas epithelium lined lesions. But this is salivary gland remnants which is present on buccal or lingual mucosa and which is seen as grayish white and multiple in nature and it is commonly mucos gland cyst. Keratin Phylcyst and in both the cases there is no treatment required mostly it will disappear within 1 or 2 weeks. So this is a self-charactered lesions and it oftenly mistake and ask neonatal teeth. So that is Epstein pearls on bone nodules Epstein pearls there is no mucos gland This is salivary glands and this is seen in a palate exactly at the mid-lane raffae, soft and hard palate junction. This is on the labelled aspect of upper alveolar ridge or labelled or lingual mucosa or even hard palate but away from the raffae. And this is lined by stratified scomas epithelium. This is mucos gland cyst in both the cases there is no requirement of treatment and Epstein pearls mostly disappear within 1 to 2 weeks of buccal and this is also self-charactered nodules. So both are identified and reported by these people that is Epstein and Mr Bond and it oftenly mistaken as neonatal teeth. That's all about Epstein pearls and Bond's nodules in the cystic lesion which are seen within New Bond's gum pads, New Bond's palates or oral cavity and oftenly mistaken as neonatal teeth, neonatal teeth are the teeth which are present within 30 days and neonatal teeth which are present during birth. So I will come up with a new session on this channel. Thank you.


Yn y cyfnod yw eich cyfnod, rydyn ni'n ddod i'w ddweud y panelodau a'r ysgolwyddiadau yw'r oedd yn cael ei gwybod i'r byw, a i ddweud y gweithio, yw'n ddweud y gweithio'r cyfnodau yn ddweud. Felly, rydyn ni'n gobeithio ar gyfer Patrick. Patrick yw'r ysgolwyr ym Mhwythuol, a'r ysgolwyr yn 1845, yn y Ffotsu 100 cyfnod, ar 19 miliwn cyfnodau 64,000 staff, ac yn y bwysig o'r ysgolwyr ar y EU. Y cyfnod ar Patrick yw yw yw, how do you think financial services businesses like all mutuals will be impacted if Britain votes to leave the European Union and does leave the EU within two years. Byrch yn mynd i Richard's comment, the FTSE 100 really doesn't represent the UK at all. We were emerging markets driven and as a consequence actually strangely enough on one measure which the sterling falling by 10 to 15% If that's how the Bank of England manages to control it. We would be a net beneficiary because we report in sterling. But we'd have the emerging markets boost. The reality, however, is we've been pulling back from Europe and restructuring over the last five years. Richard remembers it well and we are practically out of Europe, mainly Europe with all of our businesses. Having said that, we are now the third largest savings and wealth management business in the United Kingdom. We have billions of pounds of our customers' money invested via our vehicles. They are mainly invested in the SME sector in the UK, not in European stocks and not in the FTSE 100. That's how our Richard Buxton, for those of you who know him, comes from Schroters and he brought that philosophy and now runs all of our fund management side. So those billions of pounds invested in the small and medium sized enterprises in the UK, we believe that they will be seriously hit by the reduction in the value of sterling because the cost of doing business will rise significantly for them. They will not have the export opportunities that they will go uncompetitive almost overnight and that will have serious implications for people's savings. So quite a grim outlook. Having said that, I have to tell you the board of our subsidiary company, when I was asked to sign the Prime Minister's letter which I did but I signed it as Lloyd's not as old mutual, the board were afraid they'd upset the IFAs by saying that they were in favour of staying in. That's very interesting. On the microphone to you, Devinish's vision is to be world renowned for its creativity and integrity in the field of agri-technology. So you've got six manufacturing sites across the UK, Ireland and the US. What will the impact be on British manufacturing businesses if the result breaks it? The impact will be adverse, it will be a negative impact. One of the things to remember about manufacturing is that it fundamentally involves the movement of physical goods. That's just a standout distinctive feature of it. So when you listen to the debate, when you consider the issues, the movement of physical goods and again for manufacturing it's frequently forgotten. If you produce 100,000 tonnes of output, that involves moving in 100,000 tonnes of input. So you're actually dealing with 200,000 tonnes of physical goods moving in and moving out at that scale. That will become more difficult for difficult read expensive, read time consuming and time is money. One of the reasons I feel I can be so clear is that we deal with many markets around the world and we have hard won huge experience of what it takes to negotiate access, what it takes to get goods out of locations around the world. If I could just pick on one word which has come up several times and again as a practical person running a business, hone in on it. That's the word relationship. To me it's the biggest single factor I concentrate on in business that the relationships are right and if the relationships are right you can overcome most things. It might take some time which is an issue. If the relationships are not right and this seems to be forgotten by many of those campaigning for the UK to leave. It becomes impossible no matter what the rules say.  I listened to a current serving UK minister last week campaigning for the UK to leave and one of his motivations he says is regulation. He wants less regulation. What does he propose in that debate will start from scratch. My reaction to that is horror. Who has time to start from scratch? It is just otherworldly to listen to this stuff and say this is stop the world we want to get off time in my opinion. That's the real world. Thank you. Richard, as it is apparent from the biography I read earlier you have a great deal of experience of operating inside the boardrooms of many of the leading companies in the world. The question I have for Richard is how well prepared do you think UK corporates are to deal with a Brexit possibility? I think it's very hard to prepare because the range of outcomes is so variable and I don't think many people have got in depth plans for what would happen in the event of leaving. When Michael Gove said a few weeks ago that the Brexit campaign was now determined that Britain would leave a single market I think that went further than most of us thought before. Of course the reason for that was intensely political that if you remain in the single market you have to pay. You have to make a contribution to the European coffers and the European Union and the two key themes of the European exit movement. That is you save your contribution and you can keep out people, its immigration. Those of you can save the money you can keep people out. Therefore saying that Britain might remain in the single market was compromising one of the two key legs of the campaign and I think that went a lot further than British business thought and is an act of absolute economic suicide. That has happened only in the last few weeks so people certainly won't have planned for that. What people will be doing there they will be holding back on investment. That is certainly very evident in the first quarter numbers and you saw earlier this week the land securities the largest REIT in the UK real estate investment trust. They took money off the table and went slightly liquid and sold out to some of their properties and they tend to be a London centric REIT, a massive organ. I think they got £13-14 billion of property assets and they got leverage in them. British business will have prepared, has prepared by being slightly conservative in its investment so British business is not ready for this event if it occurs. Thank you for that Richard. We'll move on from the specific to the more general part of the questions and I'll start again with Patrick. Patrick you outlined earlier that Britain's membership of the European Union has conferred significant benefits on British citizens over many years and done so in many ways. I suppose the concern is that there is a limited appetite within the British electorate to grapple and absorb the complexity of the arguments being made by the Remain campaign. What do you think is the most compelling message or the most compelling way of getting across the right message to influence the vote? I wish I knew the answer. The dinner talk party or rather dinner talk at parties in London at the moment paints a scene like the following. Hillary Clinton is indicted by the FBI for her email scandals. She's forced to step down from the race. Joe Biden is coopted. He loses to Trump. We lose the Brexit vote. Boris Johnson takes over. Marine Le Pen is in France and Angela Merkel loses the argument on the immigration issues and the only person that's happy in Europe is Putin. I am not sure where it goes but I would say this very. The only argument that seems to resonate with people is to harp back into Britain's history with Europe and Obama used it himself in his speech. I think if you look at the campaign of the Remain campaign and the way the Prime Minister is working this, it is to try and put fear into people's minds because it's the same thing that happened with the Scottish referendum. Fear that jobs would be lost etc etc. I think the great, the one that certainly from my perspective that I put whenever I'm in those dinner parties is the analysis and we'll all know it very well but Britain has had an army or England has had an army on the continent in the last 100 years in the last 1000. Think about that to keep the peace to beat the hell out of them to do whatever they did to them. We have them for 700 years but anyway. I think the answer is got to be that when it's all things are considered Europe has been so good for peace and investment and confidence in the future and how those arguments get across to people is I'm not too sure. It certainly isn't resonating at the moment. It is complex and maybe in the complexity is the difficulty of conveying some simple message that people can absorb. We want to you for a second question which is the Achilles heel of the lead campaign seems to be the inability to put any shape on what life post Brexit would look like and we've talked earlier and Brendan talked in detail about the kinds of options there are in terms of arrangements. Michael Gove as we know who's a key player in the lead campaign the Secretary of State for Justice in a recent unveiling of his vision for the UK's future outside the UK telling remark that Britain would have the same relationship with the European Union as Bosnia, Albania and Ukraine if the country votes for Brexit. And then as we know President Obama was in London a couple of weeks ago and I read a comment he made which I thought was interesting and says and on that matter for example I think it's fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK US trade agreement but it's not going to happen anytime soon because our focus is on getting a negotiating with a big block like the European Union and getting a trade deal done and the UK is going to be at the back of the queue for that. So I want to question for you how do you think Britain will best preserve its relationship with the European Union and indeed the wider world from your perspective as a manufacturer in the United Kingdom. Well the I hope obvious answer to that is best expressed by a phrase that remain have used to some extent which is that Britain should lead not leave considering the alternatives why would you leave. And if I could make two comments which may just hover around that I think the EU actually and it might be in a minority thinking this I think it's a great story but great stories have to be told in a great way. You know you do need to tell people and one of my observations about this debate is the amount of people who are in favour of the UK remaining who almost for reasons of politeness seem to refuse to engage in the debate which astonishes me which is one of the reasons I'm here. And if I could give you a practical low level example I attended an event in Westminster recently which considered it run by the British Irish Chamber. The most significant moment in that debate was actually referred to earlier which was the Glastonary reference it was the first time I knew that 300,000 people who could vote who probably were younger were going to be in Glastonbury and probably wouldn't vote. And the guy who told me this had a solution he said I'm going to tell those people using a social media campaign how they can vote and be in Glastonbury and it's going to cost me £25,000 to do this and I'm going to ask 25 businesses for £1,000 each to fund that social media campaign. And I thought about it while I listened to the debate and I went back to him and I said I'll write the cheque for £25,000 to fund your campaign because I think it's a good idea. And I worry that by the time you collect the £25,000 from 25 businesses the election will be over. So I think I'm hugely concerned about this but I think it's all to play for and if you're fighting about something important you need to get out there and tell people what the issues are. It really isn't a complicated message. It's a simple message and it needs to be told simply and well and often by whatever means and methods are available. I mean it's a time in the world when methods of communication have never been as available to us. Obama turned the American election on its head by using unconventional methods to communicate a great message to a great number of people for a small amount of money. So that's why I wrote the cheque. I thought more of that. Just simple practical things for God's sake get out there and do it. Graf. Thank you for that. It's very interesting. A final question Richard for you with a political view. You mentioned some of the very disruptive political impacts that would arise if Britain leaves the union and the Guardian reporting on Obama's recent visit to London reported him as arguing that he'd heard a right to respond to the claims of Brexit campaigners that Britain would easily be able to negotiate a fresh trade deal with the US. And he said they are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do and I figured out you might want to hear from the president of the United States as to what I think the United States is going to do. And the question for you Richard is do you think it was appropriate for Obama to intervene in such a public way and ultimately when we look back on this do you think that will be a moment that we will see as one of great significance or one that mattered little. It was entirely appropriate that President Obama made those comments because he was responding to the Brexit campaign's assertion that they'd be in a better position to get a trade deal with the United States than the European Union. So he was correcting what was a gross misrepresentation of the United States policy. His remarks though have been received badly actually in the majority of places even though it strikes me as self-evident. Even the very sensible Mrs Pym thought that he shouldn't have said it which we're a little tiff about. But people have reacted badly, I think the British react badly to any external telling what to do. I mean there's that song isn't there. No rule Britannia Britain never ever shall be slaves you know anything that sort of alludes to that people run a mile. But I do think it is extremely valid that Irish people phone Irish friends and relatives as the minister said. I think private conversations. I mean what's the IEA logo at the bottom? I wrote it down sharing ideas shaping policy. I think you are in the citizens of Ireland are entirely entitled to share their ideas with British friends. So I don't want to anyway put that off but certainly President Obama standing in what's perceived as a pulpit preaching did not do well. I would though suggest the one bit of foreign influence that could really swing a really big vote in favour of remaining would be if the French president were to suggest that Britain should leave and France would be a better fishery. That might be a total order, maybe beyond the remit of this particular session. One final question and we'll open it to the floor. It's been evident in the last month or so that the Remain campaign has fired a lot of heavy artillery. So you have the IMF, you have Bill Clinton and Jeremy Corbyn coming out, Obama come to London, the Treasury with the economic impacts that were mentioned earlier. And last week's pretty outspoken view by the Bank of England which is pretty unprecedented to raise the spectre of what would happen. So the question for the panel is is that it or is this simply the beginning of the heavy bombardment that the British electorate will face over the next month. And the last month of heavy artillery is simply the softening up and now we're going to see a lot more. And do you think that the economic argument is ever going to capture the imagination of the British electorate? Because up to now all this artillery is economic or is something else needed to appeal to people who are working in Sheffield or Northampton and are struggling to put food on the table. So I'll open that to the panel if anyone occurs to dive in there. Richard, can I call in? So I think the question is what could happen in the remainder of the campaign. The problem in the Remain campaign is that Cameron oversold his fundamental renegotiation at the beginning. He didn't come back to Britain with that piece of paper which fundamentally changed the relationship of Britain with the European Union. Even though he did a superb job and got a lot more than most people thought he could come back with. It's really technical. I mean, when Brendan was going through all the stages of how the European Union works, people just glaze over in the general population. It's just far too complicated but Cameron did achieve a lot in those negotiations but he promised to Joe Public a fundamental renegotiation and no one believes he got it. So that plank of the campaign, the Remain campaign has gone. Now I do believe that most people are sensible at the end of the day and that what's in their wallet and purse will win. And Patrick, you referred to that complete mess up of the treasury estimate of the loss if Britain were to move outside the Union to family income. I think the more that is expressed the better and I would really focussed on that. But against this there is that very strong theme of anti-immigration and that isn't anything just to do with the European Union. That's just fundamental where we are in global politics. It's the Trump factor, it's the Mademoiselle Le Pen, it's the hugely right wing parties in Germany, Netherlands and Sweden that are emerging. It is a much more general theme that here is captured in leaving the European Union. And that is very difficult to fight against because it is a visceral feeling of people, against people arriving in their street who they don't know and they are unfamiliar with. It's that fear that my job might go to someone and it's just the globalization of trade. The fact is Britain has benefited hugely from immigration and indeed the country has been formed by waves of immigration, mainly from Europe. I always point out that this rather unusually shaped nose is the shows of the Roman occupation which ended in 411. I'm demonstrated by the appearance of some sort of Saxon origin. Britain's come from Europe. Somehow we see ourselves as separate and Patrick talked about the dinner party conversations of how Britain, its relationship with Europe has been putting armies onto the continent but then always withdrawing. So Britain has seen itself moving onto the continent, fixing stuff that's broken and then returning home into Fortress Britannia. And it hasn't grasped the benefit of being inside the European Union as the one people we all are. And I think that's very difficult to sell but I would really concentrate on the wallet and purse and President Alon. So what they're doing is what the Remain campaign has planned. It's to Alon's point. Business has got to get behind this. Airbus for obvious reasons came out about a month ago, wrote to all their staff and said, you know, our view is your jobs are at risk if Britain is out. You can see that in Bristol. They would lose the wing production for the Airbus and we have to do it. I spoke to the CEO of our wealth business yesterday and I said to him, I'm going to be asked to sign another Prime Minister's letter. They want 60 chairman of FTSE 100 companies to do it. I said, what do you think? He said, well, I'm in favour of it but you'll have to persuade the board. I said, well just tell the board we're doing it. I think we have to, business has to come out and there will be the fear factor. And just to say all politics is local, just to take the point, I'm writing to all my staff next week, laying out the argument in simple straight forward terms. People tell me I shouldn't do it. I'm doing it. I'm encouraging my suppliers to do it. Companies in my sector to do it. And then on a wider note, I take the point made earlier, turnout is really important. So you tell people that and I think you use every one of those 35 days at every level. This is now, the way I see the 35 days, it's now become a home game. And the home game will be won or lost by the home team. And they need to get out in the pitch and play as if their lives depend on it. And there's a thing out there called the silent majority and I actually believe in the silent majority and I believe they're the majority and I believe they're very silent. But like previous speakers, I believe they're far from fools and if the argument is put out properly and well, I think the silent majority will prevail on this one. So it's up to us. Thank you very much. So it's now time to open the floor to questions. So I'll start with this man here who's got his hand up straight away. Ronan Tynan. I'm currently based in London at the moment co-founder of Esperanza Productions and a filmmaker and I'm absolutely thrilled to inform you all. I do have a vote in this referendum. I'm registered to vote. And after listening to Brendan's chilling but masterful lecture, I can assure you I'll be doing so with immense enthusiasm and pleasure. But the word question I really want to ask the panel because I was at a meeting in Chatham House on Monday night when Grayling, the leader of the House of Commons and member of the cabinet said that after Brexit, when Britain leaves the European Union, nothing will change or need change in relation to the single market. Talking as if the United Kingdom was the United States, it's a major superpower, totally detached from reality. Well, naturally enough, I lept to my feet and pointed out to him when I got a chance because it was a packed meeting, I can tell you, and pointed out that that's not going to be the situation in Ireland because of the border between north and south. And we have moved from a militarized border to no border in the space of a generation. Now, obviously the Irish and British governments in advancing the peace process paid a huge part in that. But obviously the European Union, as we're all aware, facilitated that because we have the same system effectively both sides economically for that reason. But the question I want to ask is I'm virtually hoarse talking to friends, relations and everybody I know in Britain about the need to face up to the risks involved. I have to say, why is business so reticent? I cannot understand that because of the interests. And I commend Owen Brennan for his quick initiative because he is absolutely right. If he had not acted, that initiative would not have happened. The reticence, I just cannot understand it because the point was well made by Richard Pym that obviously people are affected by their own interests. Because I saw an interview on BBC the other night where one couple who clearly were taking a vote for Brexit after an announcement about the effect on house prices, they said, well of course we will have to think about that when people are confronted by the reality. But who best to confront them with that reality, the business, and I still cannot understand that reticence. Even amongst the city of London, as the points were well made, if you're not at the table you're on the menu. 80% of EU foreign exchange business, 85% of hedge fund assets, half the fund management business, 10% of the UK economy and 11% of tax revenue. I had to learn that off because I have regular arguments with people in the city by the way. Some of them bleed a lot are actually favour of Brexit. So just that question, please explain to me if you can why business is so reticent. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any takers on the reticence, which I think is apparent of some business, Ryanair is obviously quite a different example and has come out very strongly in favour of campaigning. But Richard, would you like to? I think it's very simple that businesses don't like to alienate their customers and if 50% of your customers are for Brexit you don't want to take a political stance. And you know that let's just say it's a major food retailer, 50% of the people coming through your doors are for Brexit. Why would you say we as a firm are to remain? And also if people do come out then they are rounded on by the leave campaign, they are outed. So the tar and the bad stuff are applied to them and there are adverse business implications immediately. People try to send messages to their staff but normally those then appear in a newspaper and the black stuff gets applied to them again. So I can do it because I'm in Ireland. I'd find it very difficult to be quite so public if it was a British firm as Patrick has found with his own board. I think when you look at the development of the reasons we are where we are, it's a self-inflicted wound. Remember that Cameron put it in the manifesto, never expecting to be the majority government.  However he's now hoisted with his own petard and people are saying well you got us here, you get us out. Lorcan Blake is my name, Chairman. I want to give an honest view on this. I think the debate so far is too much at a high level, big ticket level. It's chief executives speaking to chief executives but the big voters on the ground with the ordinary working class people. I think that for this debate to be won it has to be brought down to that level as Richard mentioned there about what's left in the pocket or what's taken from the pocket. Like the people who are putting up the case to leave in Northern Ireland for example will get 6 billion back and will give you 3 billion more on what you've got there. We've got to take the debate down to that level so that the man on the street knows what's coming and what's not coming. Around say employment law, around equality law and what's in the pocket and that's not coming through. Thank you. Lady here in the fourth row from the back. Thank you very much. Rwyna Dwarf from the Irish Farmers Association. My question bizarrely enough isn't going to be about agriculture because I think it is so self-evident for our sector. There's a negative impact from a potential Brexit on trade, unemployment, on income, on animal health issues. We are so strongly, our strong belief in terms of the negative outcome. My question actually gentlemen you were asking about what will have an impact and so happens last week. I got to catch Harriet Harman's intervention in relation to the role the EU has had on women's rights in the workplace. I thought she was brilliant I have to say and I just wanted to know was there a feeling that that intervention had had an impact and could more along those lines be what might persuade people of the benefits of staying within the European Union. Thank you. Thank you. I think the answer to that is yes. I have watched and participated in quite a lot of debates. I agree with the previous speaker in terms of you know in a way in these sort of discussions you end up talking to yourself. You need to get out there and talk to the people who are actually going to make this happen one way or the other. So a huge issue is getting people out to vote and they'll do that if they see it as being important in their interest and in their children's interest and they need to be told. So every debate I've seen of that level where the facts have been spun out I think is affecting that silent majority. It's just a point of view I have. You know we'll find out on the 23rd of June. But I have seen the sort of changes you're describing when the facts have been put out and an interesting thing I observe. When the leave side are engaged with in general I have found them to become their own worst enemies. I attended the debate for example in Oxford Phil Hogan own Patterson. Phil Hogan showed his caliber in that debate by letting own Patterson in my opinion do a lot of talking. And the more talking he did the worst case he made for the EU to leave. Now I was surrounded by people who want to leave and there weren't exactly telling me at lunch that this had changed their mind. But you could see it in their body language that they had been adversely affected by what they'd seen on Patterson do. They're making bad arguments and the more they're engaged with the more that's drawn out. Thank you. We'll take a few more questions. I'm conscious that we are slightly running over our schedule so I have people waving at me frantically but we'll finish soon enough. But this gentleman here and we'll take one or two more questions. Thanks very much Chairman Blair Horne a member of the Institute. I mean I agree that Brexit is a real possibility but I'm still not inclined to rule out the remain side. There's a conundrum in the Treasury report that I think could be important in relation to tariff policy on food prices. Brandon Halligan earlier mentioned Rhys Mogh's article in the Financial Times this week about the divisions in the Conservative Party. The divisions were over tariff policy lost in the 1906 election the 1923 election essentially over food prices and food prices was a big factor as well in the 1975 election. Britain did not do the green pound of evaluations that we did for that very reason. Now if the Brexiters talk about trading on WTO rules which they seem to accept now well that means that unless Britain unilaterally rules out tariffs on food which case it has to give the same unilateral tariff to every other country. Well then you're talking about massive tariffs on food being imported into Britain 36% on dairy products up to 70% on beef 15% on fruit and vegetables. So in the medium term there's going to be a huge increase in food prices until eventually it can negotiate free trade deals with other countries. I think that will feature in the election before in the referendum campaign in the near future and I just like if it does can that be a factor for the very main side. And I'll tell you what the Brexit response to that because I've heard that argument put and their responses that the European Union is an agricultural cartel designed to protect French farmers. There are cheaper there's cheaper food available on the. This is not me by the way and it's not me. Believe me that there is cheaper food available on the world market and that by going to the WTO tariffs we are able to access cheaper food in the rest of the world. Sounds compelling. In the long term but not the medium term. I'm not here to expand on it. A couple of questions maybe from this side. There's a gentleman here first and then we'll take the woman beside him. Thanks very much and Keith Stevens from Accenture and the financial services practice. One question I have or suppose one feeling I have is complete deja vu. Seven years ago we had the Lisbon Lisbon one and I attended conferences like this and my question is how likely to the panel is a second referendum here. It's not true Brendan's speech or Brendan's talking was very very good but the sense that I get here is that the leaveside are setting the agenda and that is exactly what happened in Ireland. And it's only it's only when the remainside set the agenda that we will start to win because there's an old phrase and it's very very relevant that when you're explaining you're losing. And what I see here is that we as business people are explaining like we had Boris Johnson during the week making an absolute outlandish claim. What was the reasoning behind it to me was to take the debate away from the economic agenda and the closer the remainside can state talking about economics food prices house prices things that affect the money in your pocket. That's what wins elections. We're not trying to. This is a business problem but it's a political solution. And in order to win this we have to be as enthused as any team is out there that wins because at the minute it seems to me that the fight and like the real and let's say the fight and the dog was greater within the leaveside at the moment rather than the remain. So that's the common but the question is how likely do we see the possibility of a second referendum. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Well the simple answer is most observers would say highly unlikely and the reason refers back to Brendan's point. Nobody knows what happens once we vote to go on the 24th of June and who will be running the country. So nobody's willing to stand up there and say except the Prime Minister obviously he says we're going to stay and therefore this is it. And when the Conservative Party is not going to open itself up again British politics is in disarray. The Labour Party is completely dead in the water. The SNP thankfully are for staying but they're a force in Westminster. You'll have seen them if you watch the Queen's speech yesterday they have more say now than the Labour Party and yet they are not a force south of the border. In terms of people's how people vote. So it is extraordinary difficult to call. I think we take a final question from this person here. Hi. Jeane Hoey from BT. My question is really about the devolved regions just your views on a potential second independence referendum in Scotland. Should the UK vote to leave and Scotland vote to remain? Well in the recent local elections in the United Kingdom the Scottish Nationalists lost their majority in the Scottish Parliament. And they seem to be stepping back from a second referendum because they might not win it. I think it will be determined solely by the vote on the day that if Scotland votes hugely to remain in the EU and England votes to leave that could resuscitate it. Just arithmetically. But at the moment it seems to have gone down the Scottish National Party priority. That's my reading of the situation. I'm conscious that we have overstayed our welcome. I'd like to conclude by just mentioning the bookmaker odds and I'm a close follower of Paddy Power. It was four to one against Britain would leave the European Union in January. 11 to four and hasn't moved much in the last while but it's an unbackable four to one on to remain and now I think someone said the book has got it wrong last year too. But the polls we're seeing are really hard to tell which way it's going to go. I would like to thank the panel. I think we've had a very interesting presentation with a very interesting Q&A and put a lot of effort into thinking about what might be said. And I think their experience came to bear today and thank you all for listening and appreciate the question. So thank you very much indeed.


Normally, I do the YouTube lives on Mondays. I did one yesterday, but today, Bow is flying back home. So I said, you know what? Rather than having no content for the day, I'll come on here for some short lessons. So number one is yesterday.  His name is Kevin, so he's all set up with the accelerator course. It looks like you guys really, really like that. So I'm going to do the same thing for today's video. So on today's video, comment on the video, not in the live chat, one lesson that you learned from the video. You could comment as many lessons as you want for more runnings into the contest, and I will pick someone else to win the accelerator course again today. So that's going to be a special gift for everyone watching and attending this video. So let's talk about stock stays. So again, guys, every single day that I come into the market, I really don't know what I'm going to trade, right? I wake up in the morning, I look at the top percentage gainers of the day, I start doing my research, and I take it from there. And today it started off with one stock, two, three, four, five, so it started off with one stock moving, and as the day progressed, as the morning progressed, more stocks came up. So the top stock of the day was EARS today, E-A-R-S.  So the stock started trending lower, lower, lower pre-market. And I think mid pre-market around 9 AM, they threw out another PR, and that other PR sold off as well. So EARS was a top contender for trade today. Pre-market, I took a very small short, I took a starter short pre-market under VWAP when I thought it was broken, and I never really got a chance to add. So that was kind of just a scratch trade. Other stocks that we're moving today were PED, PED was a chatroom pump. This stock was pumped, I think, all the way up to 350 pre-market, and I tried to go long on it actually. So when it hit the VWAP level, I borrowed that VWAP at like 330 or something like that. I have the chart in MIC, and I ended up selling it for break even. So what I'm trying to do in this market now, guys, is whenever I see a hot chick, whenever I identify a hot chick on the day, I'm at least trying on the first bounce to at least go long with some starter size. So if my max size on shorts is 5,000 because I am confident, my max size on longs is 500 shares because I'm still trying to adapt, I'm still trying to get better, and I'm still not comfortable using much size on these long setups. So now these days, I identify the hot chick, I wait for it to dip ideally towards VWAP, I buy it, and if it goes up, I sell it. If it doesn't, I sell it for break even. So today on PED, I tried the long, sold it for break even. I tried, after that, I started Tank Tank Tank, and basically what I was waiting for on that was I was waiting for the whole and a half dollar marks to bounce in the morning. So realistically, we didn't really bounce towards any whole or half dollar marks. So as soon as the market opened, I shorted the half dollar mark at 250 with a starter size and I covered basically at 2 bucks. And then you could see that there was a range that was being built. The range that was being built was around, I think it was about 210 and 190. Every time it went to 210, I shorted, every time it went to 190, I covered. Every time it went to 210, I shorted, every time it went to 190, I covered. This is called line-to-line trading. This is what Bounce specializes in. So PED was basically the one that paid the bills. I had five or six scouts on it, $0.10 each, which added up to $0.60 a share. So as you know, it is very difficult to make $0.60 a share on one trade, but making $0.10 a share six times is significantly, significantly easier. So PED was kind of the one that paid out the most. Yes, channel trading, guys, channel trading. So that was Ears, that was PED. Now we had a different stock on the day, MDGS. MDGS was a hot chick of the day as well. It traded early pre-market about 10 or 20 million shares. So these days pre-market, if a stock is trading five to 10 million shares, it has the potential to be a hot chick. These stocks are hot, these stocks are getting attention, these stocks are the ones that people are looking at. So the same thing I did on PED on MDGS, I did the same. So for example, MDGS, we identified the hot chick of the day. So as soon as it went to VWAP, I think around 325, 326 is when I took a starter long with a 320 stop and I sold 330, 340, 350. So I actually made about like 20 cents overall going long. So again, I'm identifying the hot chick, I'm waiting for it to dip down to VWAP to find support. If it finds support, I'm buying it for that flip, right? Every single day, we're identifying the hot chicks, we're saying these are the hot chicks, we know which ones, we're recognizing them.  Let me at least take some starters. Let me at least test it out and now let me build and refine a process to at least make me some more money on the long side, to look to go short. The problem with MDGS today was this guys, PED tanked out of the open and ears tanked out of the open. And here we have MDGS, which was a hot chick of the day, right? So what ended up happening is this became a very crowded stock. Now what does it mean when a stock is crowded? It could be crowded to the short side, it could be crowded to the long side, right? Most of the time, if a stock is easy to borrow, it becomes crowded to the short side because everyone is shorting it. Most of the time, if a stock is hard to borrow and the locate is not available, it becomes crowded to the long side, right? So, excuse me. So today on MDGS, we had so much volume, so much volume, so much volume, so much churn churn churn, that all we did is identify our levels, right? So on MDGS, what I was looking at was the pre-market high of the day. So the pre-market high of the day was about $365, if I remember correctly, and the low of the day was about $280, I think, $280, right? So it was kind of in this channel, right, of $360 and $280, and VWAP was right in the middle. So we have something, guys, an MIC called the 30% rule. The 30% rule is something that me and Dr. Brett Steenbarger, who was my trading coach, came up with together based on my trading. So the 30% rule says that if the stock is above VWAP, I am only allowed to use 30% of my max size. If the stock is under VWAP and signaling downside, I am allowed to use that full 100%. So MDGS was kind of hovering around VWAP up, down, up, down, up, down. So I said, I'm not using more than 30% size. So in MIC, we guide the members, right? We help the members. We don't do any pumps. We don't do any alerts. We guide the members. Basically telling the members that I am 30% size on MDGS and my stop is 365. Either I'm going to cover at 365 for a loss on 30% of my size, or if the stock goes under 280 and tells me that it is broken, I am going to bull those in the rest of my 70% size. So what ended up happening is it really never, in the morning before 10.30, it never really broke the pre-market hype. They start to go down, go down, and go down, and I have a rule. If no matter what, at 10.30 AM on the dot, I clear out my positions. This is my equivalent of walking away at the casino table after I am up. So even if I'm up or even if I'm down, I have an alarm on my phone that says, 10.30 walk away, you dumb fuck, because based on my trading, I have realized that I start to lose money after 10.30 in the morning, right? So the stock never really broke 280. It never really broke 360 before 10.30. So I say, you know what? I'm just going to get out and call it a day, right? So yesterday I had a red day of about $1,000, and today I made about $2,000, right? So the key, again, one more lesson is that you need to make sure that your red days are nothing more than one day of your green day.  We do this because it helps with your confidence. It helps with your mentality, and it is very easy to make a day's worth of work back rather than a week's worth of work, right? So if my daily average is $5,000 a day that I make, and I only lose $1,000 a day, that's risk management. That's going to keep me in the game long term. That's going to make sure that my losses never exceed my winners, right? So I lost $1,000 yesterday, made back $2,000 today. So that one lesson of risk management could essentially pay for six months of your MIC membership, right? So that's number one. So now what happened after MDGS? What happened at 1030, right? So MIC, Bao and I have created something called the zombie rule, right? And Bao and I created the zombie rule based on our own trading, right? So Bao and I have been trading for a very long time, and we realized that we would make money every single day in the morning.  And after years of this happening, we observe that something happens at 1030 in the morning, right? This is something that we have created, or something that we have observed and coined and created. So what happens after 1030 is this, guys. The volume shrinks, right? Between 9.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m., we have the most amount of volume happening because there is the most amount of market participants, right? So after 1030 is when the humans, the human traders start to slow down and go to launch and walk away, and the robots take control. So what happens is the volume shrinks, and shrinks, and shrinks, and shrinks, and shrinks by 1030 that all these robots need to do is put a burst of volume and they could start to rebound these stocks, right? So zombie is a dead thing that comes back alive. A zombie move is a dead stock that comes back to life because of these low-volume chops that these algos are doing. So we observe this, we realize it, and now we have a process around it. So at 1030 on the dot, no matter what, I cut off my trading. I've been doing this for years, and it has been the secret weapon to my trading, right? And it has been the secret weapon to making our members be consistent, right?   So the 1030 rule, the zombie rule, is our way of walking away from the table, right? So what happened at MDGS at 1030, right?  At 1030, the volume shrunk, a burst of volume came in, a burst of volume came in, and shorts started tripping over each other at a cover. Someone's stop loss went up at 320, and then 350, then 350, 360, 370, 380, and boom, you get a move above pre-market highs. So what did we say at the beginning of this video, right? What did we say at the beginning of this video?  So the zombie move triggered a domino effect, which caused everyone that was short to be stuck.  So the lesson today, guys, is the importance of the zombie rule, right? I am green today because I walked away at zombie times.  So today's lesson is to respect the rules, to respect the process, right? It took years of losses from me and Bao to learn the zombie rule. It took years of losses for us to have this observation. And here we are, even if you are on day one of your training, you are learning a rule that costs me about hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn, guys. And this is why MIC is so important. Our tagline is mentorship is the shortcut to success. Trading is very difficult. It is not easy, right? Because the problem is people don't know the strategies. People don't know what to do. Bao and I created the strategies. We've been doing this for a very long time that now by joining MIC, you do not have to pay those expensive lessons to learn the zombie rule. You don't have to pay these expensive lessons to learn what strategies work. We have the strategies. We have the rules. We have the process. You are joining MIC to shorten your learning curve, to have a mentor who is a profitable trader and to have a community of 1,500 other traders that are in this together, that want to learn together, guys. So do you guys see the value that I am talking about? Every single day, Bao and I are here mentoring you, mentoring the members, trying to help members understand what is really going on in this market, right? If I knew the zombie rule, when I first started training, I would find consistency so much quicker. But back when I started training, MIC didn't exist. I didn't have a mentor until I met Bao. The only way that I could learn was to lose money. It's like saying, imagine you want to be a doctor, right? And doctor school means that you operate on living humans until you figure it out. That's not the way it works, right? That's not the way it works.  So for me, as a trader, I want to learn from a mentor that is a consistently profitable trader. Here I am every single day showing you my process. Here I am every single day showing what is working and what isn't working. Yesterday, I lost money. Today I made money. What was the difference between yesterday? What was the difference between today? What am I doing differently, right? So this is why you need a community. This is why you need a mentor and this is why MIC is so special. We consider ourselves the Harvard of trading schools, right? If you want to be successful on anything, you need to be educated. You need to go to school.  He gets DMs from guys to say, hey, I joined this challenge program for $6,000 and the mentor never responded to my DMs. Hey, I joined this pro starter course for $4,000 and I lost all my money on pump and dumps. Now I have no more money and I can't afford the $200 of MIC. Can you please give me a discount? And you know what we say?   You lose all your money getting scammed.  Beg us for a discount on an already discounted price, right? MIC is $6 a day, guys, $6 a day. And anytime I get someone that DMs me and says, hey, man, I joined the scammer. I joined the pump and dumps. I joined the challenge program. I lost money. Can you please give me a discount? I just ignore them because I have no time for these lazy people, man. I have so much other that I need to help that are truly looking to be help, truly looking to be mentored that all of these lazy people, I just really don't even care anymore, man. I have no time for it. I'm way too busy day as it is helping members, training, making these videos, doing these webinars. I got no time for these lazy people. So my advice to you is never judge a community based on the people that are running it. You have to judge a community based on the fact that are the members learning and are the members being profitable? I see people on Twitter making and losing millions of dollars a day. I see people on Instagram, people on YouTube making 100K a day pumping, pumping, pumping.   There are members in MIC that are making consistently way more money than me and that makes me proud because it shows that the MIC process works, guys. And do you see that? I am able to literally, literally leave New Jersey on a whim, fly to Miami, buy a computer in Miami, trade in Miami, and still have the ability to come here and mentor you guys. On Saturday, we had a meetup in Miami. You literally could meet me and bow in person for free. Hey, you know what happened at these meetups? Hey man, I bought this program. It was $6,000 for the year and I lost all my money and I just joined MIC for 200 bucks and I cannot believe the value you guys are providing, right? So again, guys, judge a community based on the success that the members have, not the success that me and bow have, right? We are great traders, right? That's, sure, we're great traders, but the best part is that our trades are repeatable.  You cannot repeat the YouTube pumps that these guys are doing, but the MIC process is repeatable and that is why most of the traders that joined MIC that put in the work find consistency, guys, and that is what I want to talk about. So let's open it up to a brief Q&A and remember, comment one lesson that you learned from this video for a chance to win the accelerated course, right? You could have as much entries as you want.  Don't let it be spam, right? So that's it, guys. So let's open it up to a brief Q&A right now and we will take it from there, guys. I scroll a little bit. Yeah, guys, I am not a full-time trader. I trade for one hour a day and I'm up over, I think I did the math. I'm up like $1.2 million a year now. I made more money than even before, so I'm doing pretty well for trading one hour a day. Hey, Alex, can you tell me why you were not interested in SOS and Lizzie? That is because they did not pop to my line enough. Why do I think many tops are happening pretty market-lately?  They are not educated. They got no idea what they're doing. They just close their eyes and buy, and that usually leads to a lot of amateur traders causing the tops on these stocks. What scanner do I use? In my six and a half years of trading, I have never paid for a scanner once. Val posts his scanner every single day for members. So if you are paying for a scanner, you are clueless. Join MIC with that scanner money. Miss the meetup due to COVID, any idea when the next one will be. So as the COVID restrictions end, guys, we will be opening up more meetups. So additionally, something that I mentioned in yesterday's YouTube Live is we are now going to have meetup ambassadors. So if you are an MIC lifetime member, DM me, DM Oliver, and we would like for you to host a meetup in your own local area, and MIC will sponsor the meetup. So if you are a lifetime member and would like to be an ambassador for meetups in your local area, hit us up and we will set it up for you guys. And as the meetups continue, I'm sure Bao and I will also be showing up to those meetups as well. So brief Q and A, guys, and then I'm going to wrap it up because I'm very, very tired today. I don't usually do these YouTube Lives on Tuesdays. Bao does it. So I'm kind of caught off guard, but I just don't want to be able to provide value for you guys. So what am I doing on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis to improve my trading? That is a fantastic question. So what I do these days, guys, is because I have refined my process so well, because I have kind of been in the game and have so much screen time, all I do is just kind of keep it going, right? So I watch all the videos before they are posted. A lot of people didn't believe that. So what happens is before the videos go into the video library, the moderators send me the videos for approval, I watch all the videos, and then if they are approved, I put them in the video library. If they're not, they don't. So what I've been doing these days is just maintaining that by just staying consistent and watching all the videos. So if me, Alex, who makes a million dollars a year, trades for one hour a day is watching all the videos, you have absolutely no excuse not to watch these videos, guys. Additionally, we also ran a special promotion during the Miami Meetup. We opened it up to everyone that was at the Miami Meetup, and I spoke to Bao, and I really didn't want to open it up to anyone else, but he said to open it up for the viewers on YouTube. So for the first, again, 10 people at Textosh Miami at<PHONE_NUMBER>, we will have a special promotion for you. All right, let's go through these questions, and let's wrap it up. Sometimes locates are over 20 cents a share. Is that too expensive? My thing is this, guys, I only locate a stock if I know I can make more than the locate fee.  But other times, a locate fee is $1, but I know I'm gonna make probably $5 a share on it, so I'm gonna take it. It all depends on the setup, guys. If you can make more than the locate fee, you should be locating it. If not, you shouldn't be touching it. And for me personally, I like to locate starters only, just in case I don't use them, unless I am very confident that I'm going to trade that stock on the day. Let me show you guys my setup that I'm working with in Miami right now. So this is the view. Actually, maybe I shouldn't show you guys too much of it because maybe you'll know where I'm staying. This is my trading setup from Best Buy.  I just bought the cheapest computer they had. This is trading setup that I'm using. I have no mouse pad, so I'm using a piece of cardboard.  And yeah. So that's basically it, guys. I am probably going to wrap it up for the day. Thank you for everyone that was attending, and I will see you guys back in the room. Thanks.