Mr. THORNLEY. Self-education. I was certainly surprised that--when I read in the papers that he had not graduated, I think they said he had not graduated from high school. Mr. JENNER. That is correct. Mr. THORNLEY. I thought he had graduated from high school. I assumed that. I would say that his self-education certainly must have been--perhaps, in fact, he took USAFI courses, U.S. Armed Forces Institute courses, or something along that line, because he was one who gave the impression of having some education, certainly. Mr. JENNER. Do you have an impression of his intellect? Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; I think he was---- Mr. JENNER. I am speaking in the abstract. Mr. THORNLEY. I think he was extremely intelligent, with what information he had at hand he could always do very well and in an argument he was quick. He was quick to answer, and it was not a matter of just grabbing at something. It was a matter of coming back with a fairly precise answer to your question or to your objection to his argument. Mr. JENNER. I take it then it was your impression--I will change my question because I don't want to ask a leading question here. What was your impression as to whether his learning, in the sense we are talking about now, was superficial or was he able to master that which he read, and engage in personal self-critique of that which he read, discover its weaknesses, and apprehend its major thrust? Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I would say as I have said before, he certainly understood what he read. How much he had read, I don't know, but I do know that when he got on a subject in which he was interested, he showed a grasp of it. This is true with the book "1984," for example. It is true with Marxism. Mr. JENNER. Now that interests me also. You mentioned that before; that is, his espousal of or interest in Marxism as such. What was his ability, if he had any, and I am talking now idealistically only, to compare Marxism, communism, democracy? Mr. THORNLEY. I understand. I think---- Mr. JENNER. And did he understand the distinctions? Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I think he understood the distinctions as well as most reasonably educated people do. I think he certainly had a Marxist bias in how--where he drew the lines. For example, he could look upon the Soviet system today as a democracy by, of course, giving a completely different definition to the word "democracy" than I, for example. He would give---- Mr. JENNER. Can you remember some discussions or incidents that explain that? Would he use objectivism? Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I remember one in particular that always reminded me of his general outlook. One day we got into an argument and I thought I was really going to pin him to the wall, I thought I was going to win this argument. Mr. JENNER. On what subject? Mr. THORNLEY. On Marxism. On the theory of history. Mr. JENNER. Reconstruct the argument for me. Mr. THORNLEY. Well, all right. Let me add this.