Fences

“Something there is that doesn't love a wall...”

   This was the opening notion posed by Robert Frost in his well known, yet widely interpreted poem titled, the Mending Wall. One might well read this poem before digesting my own interpretation of it. For me, the effects of this poem were a bit like a seed. When the poem was introduced to me as a young teen in a literature class, I was walked through the experience by a seasoned educator. This teacher might also have had an even deeper education into the mind and opinions of the poet that surely influenced their own understanding of this poem. Like the seed in my analogy, my own perception of the poem was rather tiny. What did I really know of life or the world at the time, let alone the genius of a an accomplished poet? I didn't even have a driver's license, or the slightest inkling of my place in the universe. However, just as the very witness-of-life has the ability to marinade an individual into its ultimate defined flavor through experience; so too, does the tiny seed eventually bloom into the glory of its more recognizable purpose. In that moment it reveals its truth, no matter how agreeable or disagreeable that truth may be to our human understanding. These life experiences, though unique or personal to every individual are perhaps the onset of the boundaries or parameters we all create. They are the limits we define, and the lengths of which we will defend. These non-physical barriers, assuredly lend to the segregation of groups to which cultures develop. Today, my own experience has enabled me to see a deeper genius in Frost, who in my interpretation of the Mending Wall, cleverly refuses to take a side or share his opinion openly concerning the importance of such a boundary. The balance of his words and the contemplative style of the narrator, allow Frost the creative liberty of standing in the shadows, but his personal opinion is perhaps surprisingly clear, at least to me.

   Frost seems to encourage the reader to consider both the Utopian viewpoint of the narrator, as well as the opposing view that accepts without question or challenge. The poet, Frost, plays both ends of the debate through the insight and perspective of the narrator. Frost himself is both the neighbor that parrots the old adage, Good fences make good neighbors, and the more rebellious neighbor who dares to challenge such conventional wisdom. Frost is, however, careful how he sets up his argument (which is telling) by qualifying certain details that hone us into considering the narrator's central point that is stated twice through the duration of the poem; “Something there is that doesn't love a wall...” Ironically, but quite intentionally crafted by Frost, the neighbor also twice states, “Good fences make good neighbors.” Its the classic stand-off, interpreted of course, by one's own perspective. I am certain that Frost always knew the answer to this dilemma however perplexing or unpopular his opinion might have been, which is why I feel he penned the poem in a relatively cloaked manner in the first place. The answer was tough but clear, even to Frost. However, the intended focus concerning the gist of the Mending Wall, lies within the beliefs of both characters of the poem. One's belief is based on emotion and the other's is based in faith, neither of which bear any consequence in Nature. Yet, it is the reader of this poem who becomes the jury, which will also pass their own verdict, likely based on their personal experiences of emotion or faith. This verdict will stand in stark contrast, when articulating the rugged truths of Nature as it pertains to barriers seen and unseen. The verdict will derive from experience lived and understanding processed to that point of one's reading of the Mending Wall by the standards held of the day. The outcome of this verdict will, for most, lie in their own learned bias and social programing of the time. Regardless of how we feel about our interpretations of the poem at any point in history, Nature will most certainly and without apology or judgment, go about Her business. She will allow the chips to fall where they may. Is it no wonder we evoke the meddling of God & devil, or that we rely on such alibis of chance, luck, or divine providence when it comes to our actions or intentions? The one thing we can't rip from our DNA is our own innate nature. Once we bring down the fantasy walls we have created between Nature, and the many walls existing between our civil-selves, than we are exposed to Nature's unyielding, yet patient cycle of reclamation and rebirth. Still, the role of fences (with the passage of time) becomes more and more diminished through this cycle of what we perceive as 'social progress'.

   I would like this discussion to contemplate fences, and Frost's Mending Wall is a helpful tool or platform from which to launch such a complicated yet worthy subject matter. While far from being an expert on Frost, I am certain that he had a vast understanding of Nature as well as man's place in it. I capitalize the word, Nature, to give it the respect and dignity that we once reserved for God. Nature is an agent of God. One tough lesson we learn from Nature is how unforgiving it is. It is man that personifies Nature in order to make sense of it and deal with it. We often refer to Nature as female in gender, which was logical prior to our modern age of political and social correctness (a wall in itself that I will not cover specifically in this particular work). She (Nature) is unbridled and we are constantly at Her mercy. “Something there is that doesn't love a wall...”. Frost's narrator holds the opinion, assumed through his own life experiences that Nature thinks it is wrong to be there, and would prefer that it crumble and fall. However, if that be true, Nature might well say, “Something there is that doesn't love a house, or a bridge, or a town, or anything that man might erect.” Nature is certainly no respecter of mankind. She could care less if we referred to Her as a woman or a man, even if she/he/it had the ability to care. Nature is defined ambiguously by its observed routine. Therefore, humankind have reckoned that there are 'laws of Nature'. She has Her own fences which She erects in the form of mountain ranges, deserts, rivers, oceans and so on. Nature has other more subtle barriers such as seasons, weather, atmospheres, outer space, and even pheromones. Both mankind and creature must challenge these boundaries, ford Her obstacles, adapt to Her conditions, and occupy (and survive) these areas through their own unique capabilities. Nature orchestrates an inconceivable amount of cycles in a juggling act far too complicated for any one man's understanding. We and the creatures among us, struggle to survive for a solitary purpose, or so we have led ourselves to believe. We will be born, live, and die, hopefully propagating along the way, that we may continue to exist among a vast array of competing lifeforms, rigorous trials, and constant tribulations. Whether conscious or aloof to the effect of Nature upon us, we arrange our many barriers to accomplish advantage and control. Even the human interpretation of the fittest rising to the top of survivability yields no stake in the attitude of Nature. It is only a logical coincidence that makes common sense, which is hardly Her concern. To think it otherwise would open Nature up to be something as ridiculous as a bigot. Nature merely moves onward, immune to our accusations and evolved sensitivities, continuing to do things as She always has. As God is presumed to be the 'I AM that I AM', Nature similarly and quite simply 'IS what She IS'. If something works more often than not within Her subtle walled kingdom, it can be neither good or bad. It just 'is'. It simply survives while the other fails. So, whether the fence be the boundary scent of a wolf's piss on a parameter of tree trunks, or the more obvious wall fashioned from laid block or stone; creating barriers of all kinds is both logical and necessary. It is true of Nature, and it is also true of man. Why is this so?

   Alliances and trust are not elements of Nature, but conditions sought by humans and a few creatures within her realm. Mankind segregates, geese gaggle, birds and sheep flock, fish school, wolves pack, and other critters herd. For some reason, like creatures tend to 'logically' huddle. Some are loners in some respect, but seek each other out as Nature's cyclical whim hits them. Still there is commonality among species. Though man is more complicated, and I contend this to be a condition caused by his large advanced brain and nimble dexterity, he can be more discriminatory than simpler creatures and organisms. Man can choose whom he prefers to be surrounded by, in company with, and in agreement with, by shared commonalities. Man is also very capable of maintaining those associations through his own ferociousness. History, though we rarely learn from it, is a testimony to this troublesome fact. A clan of such 'like thinkers' can be a very persuasive deterrent to a trespasser from a tribe not sharing the same customs or beliefs. If challenged and capable, man will eliminate that which may threaten his own clan. He may also take what he wants, at will, once he is victorious. I realize this all seems so archaic in what we perceive now to be a civilized world of equality and tolerance. And so, in our wisdom and to our peril, we bring our walls down, and 'trust' that the laws of man (fantasy walls themselves), will be more forgiving than the laws of Nature. And, perhaps they will be for a day, or for a moment of brilliance in the Age of Peace & Civility, soaring like Icarus to foolish heights. All this greatness, a mere note in one of Nature's long melodious songs, which often ends in a crashing crescendo, or at other times a pitiful whimper. It's just another wall, deconstructed in an instant, or at most, a millennium or two. None-the-less, it is of no consequence to Nature. Any attempt to label Her as malicious, lies only within the psyche of man. It doesn't cross the mind of a bear, or a lizard, or a bird. Only man can create such a fantasy, as we do at times for our own entertainment. Only man has the ability to somewhat wall himself off from Nature, but only for a time. What survives of him will come natural once his unnatural walls come crumbling down. He will then erect new fences and brutishly wield his will once more. The mighty and the keen will gravitate to the top as new alliances are forged. Beliefs within will be common, and the thought of foregoing walls will be many, many moons into a future which will seem cruel and cold. But, why is any of this important?

   Well, it has a lot to do with what we have come to define as tolerance, and how we manage it or deal with it. Ideologies, religious beliefs, philosophies, skin color, or even general health are but a few, and barely scratch the surface of the challenges to be met with tolerance. If mass social freedom is not managed delicately, the inevitable cycle of Nature completes itself in a more drastic and powerful manner. This is how mankind will perceive it, much like a rubber band snapping painfully back when stretched too far. Nature, of course, experiences it as a mere bump in its eternal highway. She has no dog in the fight of man's fickleness. Great freedom does indeed have a lofty price. All is good provided you have been on the receiving end, and that there is room to go forth and multiply. All is good when you have the freedom to pursue happiness. All is good, when rules (fences, walls, and barriers) you have agreed to assemble behind are honored and unchallenged. Yet as those definitions become more and more inclusive and the old established powers diminish, animosities begin to stew, trust tends toward waning, and the bitterness of betrayal instills. This scenario is evident in all societies throughout history all over the globe.

   Yes, we at some point realize that walls are not really barriers to friendships or neighborly existence, but on either side of the wall (or the argument concerning such a boundary), we often forget why they were constructed. As with the characters in Frost's poem, one recalls only the tradition. It has always been and thus, should always be. This is blind faith. Conversely, the other man supposes that to repair this wall every spring is ridiculous and unnecessary. One man may be correct but is unable or incapable of articulating why, which perhaps makes his case (or wall) susceptible to scrutiny. However, the other man is able to articulate his argument, though it is based falsely on emotion and fantasy. Nature is a sort of Disney-pixie of fanciful virtues that pecks at evil walls perpetuated more by his sensitivity and feelings, than reality. He may be a kind and caring man, but one who imagines a Shambhala outside of the reality of earthly Nature, where paintings don't need frames, homes need no doors, and public toilets need no separate stalls. This Utopia could not exist on Earth at present, not within Nature's current program scripted by our Creator. Not without a mighty wall to protect it from Her elements, heartless predators, and those who arrive unwelcome. The rules are written by those who can carry them out forcibly. What is yours is what can't be taken from you or your kind. Even a line on a map is high enough to claim and defend. However, in the absence of man's law there is chaos, and that is when the walls come tumbling down. Once breached, that might not be a good day for some; but that's just the beginning of the problems to be encountered thereafter. In that respect, one might agree that, good fences make good neighbors, or that good laws make for good civility, or do what you want in your room and I'll do what I want in mine.

Who's the Dummy Now?

Unfortunately, Reverend William J. Barber is just another pinko streetwalker parading around as a civil rights leader who promotes the idealism of his Progressive (that’s pc for Marxist) white handlers. Yet, Reverend Barber doesn’t seem to really fit in with the poor and oppressed, or even the bulk of the Christian community (black, white or otherwise) that he apparently represents. His venomous tongue, slick pricey wardrobe, Jheri curls and gout-like conditions display more a caricature of a man who has tipped the tithing plate toward his own sloth, than a genuine Man-of-the-Cloth. He’s certainly no Martin Luther King. King had the ability to bring people together. Like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, Barber has found his place at the bottom of the creek, swaying idle with his mouth gaping upstream, desperately trying to make himself relevant amid a string of bottom feeders. If you disagree with a man, debate him openly and fairly. One shouldn’t hide behind theology, spouting ridicule and sarcasm as a defense for an ideology. Barber’s verbal attack on Senator Tim Scott, a black conservative, was pointless and disruptive to any real discussion about social woes.




The left’s iron grip on minorities isn’t because they have anything better to offer them. They seem to have an uncanny dominion over poor communities and sub-groups with grievances that the left hypes to enormous proportions with many baseless claims and contrived facts. This is never more prevalent than when those groups are challenged by conservative leaders of the same ilk, or when that same conservative gets to share his or her own idealism with the left’s corral of expected followers. Instead, the left will claim that conservative blacks, Hispanics, gays or women are simply traitors (or Uncle Toms) of the worst kind embracing white, corporate, capitalist elites. How dare these people think for themselves without clearing it first with leftist headquarters? Who the hell do they think they are breaking ranks, they’re supposed to be backing us? These same leftist leaders encourage their fold not to think for themselves or fall to the evil ‘lies’ of the right. Of course this implies that these leaders don’t trust their fold to discern right from wrong or lies and truth. They also encourage their fold to allow their leftist leaders to manage their personal political affairs and simply endorse the ‘progressive’ candidates across-the-board in trade for entitlement trinkets. They convince their sheep that this is owed to them, and that their lives are hard because of the right’s greed.



The irony of all this is that when you look at these left leaning leaders; they’re living the proverbial highlife that they criticize. The sheep say nothing of this obvious faux pas, rationalizing that these folks must be their own privileged class (I guess no matter where you go there is a pecking order). They don’t see these folks as hypocritical at all. They must be convinced that their rich privileged class is less money-motivated than those other rich privileged folks perceived to be on the right. Some of those left leaning leaders not only live in the same uppity white neighborhoods as those on the right, their children may also be attending private schools. That doesn’t seem to resonate as odd to the fold. Their shepherds sport the finest fashions, eat at the swankiest restaurants, cavort among wealthy celebrities, plot with tycoon bureaucrats, rub elbows with union millionaires, and chum with their own corporate opportunists that can make a buck off of the blight of the poor and ignorant. To the left, their sheep are a mere demographic bussed in to hold their signs, vote illegally in multiple locations, and shout the left’s talking points when the cameras are rolling. Just like any area that is run by corruption, it is the whistle blower that is hated for exposing the true oppressor to the light. This is because the true oppressor is the one with the power over them, not the tattle tale or snitch. So, those folks fenced-in on the left who might think differently must either forever keep their mouths shut or buy in to the code-of-silence that rewards loyalty with a higher post in the cesspool. The Barbers of the world need the status quo, victimization, dependency, and entitlement to keep the geese in the gaggle, honking the party line.



If the Progressives’ wish of dethroning God and destroying capitalism ever succeeds, climbing out of poverty or dreams of self-advancement will be a thing of the past. It will be you governed by them. The entitlements will slowly shrink away for everyone but them, of course. You’re witnessing that now with Obamacare. You’ll have your health plan and they’ll have better. You’ll have bologna and they’ll eat steak. They’ll own property, and you’ll lease it. You’ll have nothing but your life, and they’ll dictate what you do with it. Your children will be indoctrinated in their public schools. You’ll labor, and they’ll count the beans. Then, they’ll decide how many beans you’ll get. Ambition will be dead, and production will die soon after. Resistance at this point will be futile. No guns, no God, no alternative, and nowhere to turn but to them. But guess what? They won’t need your support anymore because they’ll be the only game in town. The unions will be with them, those fortunate enough to govern will be with them, and the cops that will beat down your door will be directed by them. The government will be Edgar Bergen and you’ll be Charlie McCarthy (or Jeff Dunham and Peanut if you’re a youngster). At that point you can slap yourself on the back and say, “A ventriloquist can always find a good dummy.”