Tímarit Máls og menningar - 01.06.1968, Qupperneq 53

Halldórs hin síðari ár, þykir mér rétt
að prenta hana í heild:
I have been in touch with theories of
various kinds in my lifetime, religious and
scientific philosophies, sectarianisms and
orthodoxies, — I guess the word „ideology"
is the one that comes nearest to what you
called religion in olden times, but I abhor
it although I sometimes have to use it.
For a traveller who has friends in many
nations and has been familiar with the
arguments of diverging sets of ideas, it is
not advisable to absorb a single doctrine
to the extent of making you forget to use
your common sense; and still less advis-
able to get so petrified by an orthodoxy
as to forget humanity itself. You don’t
know where theories might take you if you
lose your common sense or forget how to
use it. If I had a wish, I should like to
find a road right across the opposing
universal theories and ideological barriers
that make modern history a replica of the
history of the Christian-Islam wars of the
early Middle Ages; a road across the
dogmas, slogans and clichés that in so
many cases are adverse to the sound sense
of ordinary humans; a road across the
many unneccessary harsh words and super-
fluous insinuations, across the incessant
drunkard-like threats of shooting, sound-
ing from each side of the fence; the road
of common sense leading to humanity
(Gjörníngabók, bls. 194—195).
Halldór Laxness hefur gert æ meira
að því að láta í ljós efa sinn gagnvart
stirðnuðum ídeólógíum til þess í
staðinn að leggja meiri áherzlu á
sumpart hagsýnan og raunverulegan
árangur, sumpart frelsi og réttindi
Halldór Laxness á krossgötum
einstaklingsins. Það er þannig ein-
kennandi að hann talar um Kína sem
“the only regime in Asia tvhich not
only feeds and clothes its citizens,
and keeps them busy; but also the
only Asian government that is not
sitting in tears by the roadside, stick-
ing out a begging hand towards the
United States of America.” Og með
önnur austurlönd og þá kannski um-
fram allt Indland í huga, varpar hann
fram þeirri spurningu „whether the
Red brainwash is not preferable to a
lot of philosophy and religion, and
whether those latter conveniences are
not in some of those countries a sheer
product of misery, mainly serving as
a substitute for ordinary consumers’
goods“ (Gjörníngabók, bls. 202).
Hann kveður enn fastar að orði um
hinar örlagaríku trúardeilur milli
hindúa og múhameðstrúarmanna er
leiddu til skiptingar í Indlandi og
Pakistan: „Any Red brainwash, the
Chinese fashion, complete with all the
most facile platitudes of Marxism, is
preferable to the metaphysical di-
lemma of the Indian people“ (Gjöm-
íngabók, bls. 206).
Vaxandi andúð hans á kórréttum
skoðunum hefur hins vegar ekki
hvað sízt komið fram í þverrandi
málflutningi í þágu Sovétríkjanna og
sósíalistísku ríkjanna í Austurevrópu
yfirleitt. Auk þess hefur hann forð-
azt allan fjandskap við Bandaríkin og
Nató. Það er eftirtektarvert að ekkert
43