I have recently been scribbling elsewhere about the complete non-topics of “racist gardening” and (sigh) “multihorticulturalism,” subjects that suddenly sprouted back into my mind a few days later whilst I was out innocently mowing my lawn. This caused me to stop momentarily as I massacred the daisies and consider: Could this innocuous pastime also be considered a profoundly white supremacist act? Apparently so.

I wrote previously on Takimag about the leading British neo-Nazi Colin Jordan, who painted the words “JEW-KILLER” on his weed-killer tin in order to commit fantasy genocide against his buttercups and dandelions whenever ethnically cleansing his lawn of such unwanted soon-to-be-rootless cosmopolitans. When airily strimming the heads off my own weeds, was I unwittingly following in Jordan’s goose-stepping footprints?

The Greta Gatsby
The most high-profile reference to racist lawn-mowing I could find comes, rather pathetically, from Scientific American, once a reputable ideologically neutral outlet, now every bit as left-leaning as The Guardian or NYT. On the magazine’s subsidiary “Anthropology in Practice” blog back in 2017, a distinctly Greta Thunberg-sounding lefty eco-writer named Krystal D’Costa wrote a piece named “The American Obsession With Lawns,” which set out to completely ruin not only the innocent practice of trimming one’s grass, but, far worse, the act of reading The Great Gatsby too.

Gatsby is one of my all-time favorites, but I must confess I didn’t specifically remember the single sentence of the book that turns out actually to have been the key one. Sickeningly, at one point in Fitzgerald’s Great American Novel, it turns out that Jackboot Jay Gatsby sends his gardeners out to mow his neighbor’s untidy lawn prior to holding a luncheon at his mansion, something that, so D’Costa says, only acts to further reveal Gatsby as the rapacious hyper-exploitative capitalist he so clearly is.

For D’Costa, lawns are “viewed as an indicator of socio-economic character, which translates into property—and resale values.” Large, tidy lawns like Gatsby’s “are indicative of success; they are a physical manifestation of the American Dream of home ownership.” They are also signs of possessing normative social values: a real no-no for the professionally transgressive left these days. Whilst “A properly maintained lawn tells others you are a good neighbor,” having grass so long Hiroo Onoda could successfully hide out in it for three straight decades undetected is not.

Keep Off the Grass
So, evil lawns like Gatsby’s symbolize capitalism and the American Dream—but isn’t capitalism now revealed by Cultural Marxism as actually being a pure American Nightmare? Capitalism causes climate change, so we are told, and has spawned droughts all across the land. But maintaining a nice green lawn requires gallons and gallons of scarce water, leading to a new, more green-friendly, online #droughtshame movement springing up across California, in which smartphone-wielding informers for the local eco-Stasi censoriously transform a nicely kept lawn into a sign of lack of concern for your fellow beings on this allegedly dying planet of ours instead.

Furthermore, says D’Costa, “We are at a moment when the American Dream, inasmuch as it still exists, is changing,” and “The idea of homeownership is untenable or undesirable for many”: presumably, all those poor, downtrodden, and dispossessed drug addicts one sees littering the streets of cities like L.A. and San Francisco these days after smoking too much grass rather than cutting it. As of 2005, D’Costa laments, lawns covered an area of America “the size of Texas,” making grass “the most grown crop in the United States—and it’s not one that anyone can eat [or, indeed, smoke]; it’s primary purpose is to make us look and feel good about ourselves.”

Good Christ! Heaven forfend Americans should ever end up actually feeling good about themselves these days! That’s the last thing we would want, otherwise non-demoralized citizens might wish to maintain and preserve their historic civilization for themselves and their future children instead of tearing the whole thing down wholesale along with its statues.

As D’Costa notes, during China’s 1960s/70s Cultural Revolution, fanatical teenage Red Guards swept through the country, systematically pulling up “any lawns that had been established under American and British [colonial] influence.” American lawns, it seems, are “an anomaly,” which “may no longer fit the realities of the world we live in.” So, as in Communist China, such obscenities now need to be uprooted wholesale.

Given the state of constant racial blackmail under which we all now labor, the best way to ensure American gardeners are enlisted in this neo-Maoist scheme themselves today, of course, is to pretend that a well-manicured lawn is not truly verdantly green…but instead, hideously white.

Emmett Tilling the Soil
How can a lawn be racist? I’ve never seen one kneel on anybody’s neck.

Krystal D’Costa provides one potential leftist avenue of approach. Most of the grasses currently used in American lawns were introduced to the continent by white colonialists for use on pastureland—despite its name, Kentucky Bluegrass is actually a native European species, much like how George Washington’s family originally hailed from Washington, Tyne and Wear, in North East England, not Washington, D.C. Being of presumable immigrant stock herself, back in 2017 D’Costa spun this in a mass-immigration-positive fashion, as in, “[these grasses] may initially have been immigrants in their own right, but within a few generations, they were definitely naturalized American citizens.”

Then, however, 2020 came along and George Floyd was summarily transformed into compost over in Minneapolis, leading to articles with titles like “Is it time to decolonize your lawn?” appearing in Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, where a Canuck History Professor, John Douglas Belshaw, was happy to provide mad quotes like “A backyard with a big lawn is like a classroom for colonialism.”

How so, Prof? Because lawns act as an educative small-scale backyard model for European settlers later committing genocide against Native American and Canadian Indians, that’s how. Growing a lawn, Belshaw says, teaches white colonizers the following handy Injun-killing lessons in microcosm: “I can reorganize this landscape, flatten it, plant lawn, find a non-indigenous species of plant, of grass, and completely extract anything that’s not homogenous, that doesn’t fit with this green [or, analogously, white] pattern, and control it.” And so, we’re back with Colin Jordan and his big daisy-genociding tin of “JEW-KILLER” fluid once again.

The White, White Grass of Home
Naturally, some contemporary living Indians who had genocide prosecuted against them by whitey in the past (albeit not very successfully, as they are both contemporary and still living…) were enlisted by the article’s author to add their own highly valuable thoughts upon the matter. Ironically, the person chosen to make the argument that gardens didn’t really exist anywhere outside the minds of invading white colonialists was one Jayce Chiblow, of the Garden River First Nation, who argued that, according to indigenous tradition, plants were “our relatives,” who did not belong to us any more than I can own your granddad.

For the Garden River People, private lawns were mere Jay Gatsby-like expressions of a “property ownership mentality,” but property, as the anarchist Proudhon once explained, was only a polite way of saying “theft,” and good little Indians like Chiblow herself didn’t believe in anything so crude and selfish as actually owning pieces of lands at all. Why do you continually keep on asking us for all of it back, then?

One man seemingly happy to hand all the continent’s land back over to the Hiawathas on a plate is Dan Kraus, “a senior conservation biologist at the Nature Conservancy of Canada,” who recommends the best way for North Americans to conserve their lawn is…to utterly destroy it, in the name of “valuing diversity versus sameness.” As The Globe and Mail summarized Kraus’ thinking: “Of course, we are not stuck with our yards as they are, and it is not technically difficult to diversify and decolonize a lawn. Most ecologists suggest minimizing how much you maintain it a little more each year and replacing some or all of the grass with Indigenous species.”

If European colonists growing a lawn with imported European grasses back in the 1700s/1800s stood in as an instructive model for colonizing the natives, as Professor Belshaw thought, doesn’t ripping all the old-stock imported European grasses up by the roots and substituting them with other races of seed today en masse stand in as an equally good training ground for the ongoing Great Replacement?

High on Weed?
Many gardeners, like Colin Jordan, may consider unwanted species invading and defacing their lawns to be mere polluting weeds; but such people ARE RACISTS. Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Grassland! Dan Kraus has elsewhere said that:

“‘Weed’ is a very subjective term. There is no scientific definition that says: this is a weed, this is not a weed. They’re basically plants that are in a place where people don’t want them. People consider dandelions to be a weed, but if you just change your mind about dandelions, and you don’t mind them on your lawn, then they’re no longer a weed…. As humans, we are attracted to diversity [I’m not—I must be inhuman], but for some reason that hasn’t been applied to our lawns.”

So, just let them all in! Come on! Every last weed, whether harmless pretty little pink thing, flesh-eating Venus flytrap, rot-spreading fungus, or poisonous deadly nightshade! Just like countries, ideal gardens should be entirely without borders, herbaceous or otherwise. The more weeds the merrier; neat mono-colored lawns are boring and monotonous, why not add a little color to them? What could possibly ever go wrong?

One rather moralizing May 2020 blog—the very same month George Floyd himself began pushing up daisies, please note—called “Dandelions and Civilization” brings several varied left-wing criticisms of well-cultivated lawns together, apparently concluding they are part of some subliminal plot to undermine the otherwise inevitable triumph of World Communism:

“In the Red Scare of the 1950s, Communism and crabgrass were both symbols of unpatriotic dissent. Weeds were invaders, like guerillas, to be waged war on and destroyed. Whole industries developed to create chemicals and tools to help defeat the enemies of conformity…. Mowing your lawn to unnatural shortness is an act of obedience and concession to faith in the body politic…. Independence is unwanted. Homeowners are under community scrutiny to conform with the suburban Borg [the identikit robot-people from Star Trek]. Resistance is futile.”

But shouldn’t Commies like that kind of thing?

If you remember the original H.G. Wells version of The War of the Worlds, one of the chief bioweapons the Martians brought along with them was a native red weed that spread ruthlessly across the entire Earth, colonizing its soils and rendering them wholly unfit for human habitation. As with Martians, so with Marxists.

As for my own lawn, I can’t pretend it’s perfectly maintained, primarily because the No Borders neighborhood cats pretty regularly come along in the middle of the night and shit all over it. But at least they’re just poor, dumb animals who can’t help their own actions. What’s the excuse of the above-named “ecologists,” “academics,” and “conservationists” for doing the same?