Nature Kills Reason

It is nature’s intent to kill reason.
Hell bent on destroying that
Which colonizes nature.
There is a war which will never end.

A cabin sits in the forest.
It was once the home of a man
He thrashed the grass and cut
Choice logs, but could not contend.

While he won the battle
It seemed at odds he lost
The war for the space
As Queen Anne’s Lace crept in.

Brick buildings make for cold shelter
Heated by the the spy of nature-
Fire boils our tea and cooks,
Seemingly a friend, but only pretend.

Nature did not pick this fight,
We did. With our ill intentions
We decidedly chose to kill
That nature which threatened.

I want to know what you, the reader, thinks. Consider leaving a comment and I will reply!

26 thoughts on “Nature Kills Reason

      1. Not this time the Amazon is burning to nothing, half of Australia now has no trees an d the Congo is being decimated. Which means we and all the animals and plants of nature have 30 years of oxygen left at most. THen everything loses


      2. When we destroy nature, we destroy ourselves. When we are gone, nature retakes the throne. Maybe not in the way we see it now, but she does infact take her crown back

        Liked by 1 person

  1. The realism of this in the present situation makes the poem even more honest.
    The gravity of what you wrote so poignantly is shattering.
    Also I loved the title.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. In the context of Robert the Bruce and the Scottish Wars( I am in total agreement, Lincoln I think said something about when the government stops working for the voters then itโ€™s our Duty to o ask for redress. The language brings with force in its use a steady flow which I liken to the crescendo in some opera. Hope my comments help ๐Ÿ•บ๐Ÿ’ฏโšพ๏ธ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿ—ณ๐Ÿ•โ™’๏ธ


    1. Yes, that is the goal! Bring back the love of poetry that inspires someone to write from their heart. Break past the algorithms and rules set for poets and make something unique to yourself. That is what primitive poetry stands for

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Nicely, nah, no primeval is would serve the purpose now. It cut through and itโ€™s funny because ya say Primitive and itโ€™s bullshit however on the second paragraph it became apparent that I was about to go there with your Brusque rhetoric but hey You Did Say Primitivo Santos was a ๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ด Accordion merengue player for over 20 years out of Washington DC. His lead singer ๐Ÿ‘จโ€๐ŸŽค Camboy Estevez is from my hometown of Santiago, D.R. And in the early 1960โ€™s before 1968, he would pass by my house ๐Ÿ . Google their music and dance with Santos and wallow in love loss with Camboy!๐Ÿ™๐Ÿ•โ™’๏ธ


    1. Thank you. Sometimes I wonder if I should write more densely about a subject, but I’d rather write several pieces about one subject than one super long piece that fully explores.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Whatever the subject requires. If it’s a long poem, you’re going to write a long poem.

        The great poets used to refer to “Material”, that was latent psychical content for their poems. Sometimes they didn’t have any for years on end, like Longfellow for example.

        But, you can only write sufficient for the material. If the material requires longer poems, it will naturally occur.

        Hope this helps. I don’t mean to be a know it all. I’ve been writing for 12 years now, primarily in poetry. I’ve read a lot on other writer’s processes, and it’s helped me with my own processes.

        God bless.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I really appreciate your input! I want to learn more from other writers so that I can teach other writers. The beauty of meeting others is that we can influence each other, or hopefully appreciate the process that we have. The uniqueness is what I looked for.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s