In 2020, the dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un, ordered the confiscation of dogs owned by those living in the capital of Pyongyang because they had grown to represent ‘Western decadence’.

Apparently unaware humans have been keeping dogs as pets for more than 30,000 years, he decided that they were part of a ‘tainted trend within a bourgeois ideology’.

‘Ordinary people raise pigs and livestock on their porches, but high-ranking officials and the wealthy own pet dogs, which stoked some resentment [among the lower classes]. Authorities have identified households with pet dogs and are forcing them to give them up or forcefully confiscating them and putting them down,’ said one source in a South Korean newspaper.

Ah, the joys of communism, where poverty has reached such desperation that man’s best friend is seen as a sign of ‘wealth’ that must be eliminated to prevent revolution.

Other reports added that some of these pets were being killed for food. As the National Post said:

‘Once the pets are rounded up, it’s reported, some go to zoos and some are sold into the restaurant trade, where dogs are regularly consumed.’

At the time, over 60 per cent of North Korea was gripped by severe food shortages.

Dog meat has long formed part of North Korean diet, but realistically, the order to ban pets on this occasion had nothing to do with fixing famine and everything to do with maintaining control. Keeping pets means loving something other than the State. They are an extension of the family unit and therefore seen as competition for citizen affection. Pets erode the power of the State, as we shall soon see, they may also threaten the Climate Change movement.

Far from quelling class conflict, the slightly wealthy North Koreans have been left infuriated by order. Owning a pet is a small liberty denied by a paranoid, fragile leader losing his grip on a starving nation. Being told to kill and eat furry family members is reminiscent of China’s Great Leap when peasants were forced to eat their relatives to survive.

Kim Jong-Un is the third iteration of a fading empire of self-styled gods whose legacy will be remembered as fear, famine, and failure.

Four years on from the original order, the regime is struggling to enforce the pet ban. Last week, the North Korean government repeated its rhetoric:

‘Treating a dog as a family member, who eats and sleeps with the family, is incompatible with the socialist lifestyle and should be strictly avoided. The practice of dressing up dogs as if they were humans, putting pretty ribbons in their hair, wrapping them in a blanket, and burying them when they die is a bourgeois activity. It’s one of the ways wealthy people waste money in a capitalist society.’

‘Waste money’ is another way of saying that people in capitalist societies have surplus money to do with as they please. That is the real affront to communism, where poverty has been rebranded as devotion to the State. If you have something to spare – you haven’t given enough.

Communism, especially when it grinds itself into oblivion, functions as slavery on a massive scale. Any form of individualism, including owning a pet, creates the possibility of competition – of a way to rise above the other prisoners, even if the currency is the love of a four-legged friend.

It is no accident that the regime degrades these pets to the status of ‘meat’.

‘Dogs are basically meat that’s raised outside in accordance with their nature and then eaten when they die. Therefore, such behaviour is totally unsocialist and must be strictly eliminated.’

I wonder how the animal protection groups in the West feel about this, considering their overlap with socialism… Although to be fair, they are waging a war against farm animals – attempting to exterminate meat in favour of bugs so perhaps they’ll get around to killing dogs.

Frightening the North Korean people into obedience has worked for many generations, but the heartlessness is hitting hard.

‘What should I do with the dog I love so much? I can’t just kill it, and I can’t just abandon it,’ said one pet owner.

The Executive Director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea added:

‘The Kim regime criminalises normal behaviour, including visiting a relative in a neighbouring village without a travel permit, crossing the border without regime approval, or possessing a religious book. The ongoing crackdown on pet dog ownership as non-socialist behaviour – this attempt to break the multi-millennial human-canine bond by ideological decree – is the epitome of ludicrous interdiction.’

Kim isn’t the only one who wants to come after dogs.

The eco-fascist movement, also known by its softer names of ‘Climate Change’ and ‘environmentalism’, have been ramping up their war against pets.

Euronews ran the headline in 2021, What’s worse for the climate crisis: Your child or your pet? Subtitled, Research shows a way to bring down carbon emissions is to limit family numbers and forego pet ownership.

‘Both owning a pet and having a child can increase your carbon footprint in different ways, but which one is worse?’ The article asks, as if this is an appropriate way to speak about children and pets.

‘Go green by keeping your family lean…’ It advises, referencing a 2017 study that equated a child to 58 tonnes of CO2 ‘for each year of the parents’ life’. ‘In the long term we found that there’s a big climate impact from creating a new person…’ said Sustainability Scientist Professor, Kimberly Nicholas, at Lund University.

Meanwhile, an environmental campaigner said of pet ownership, ‘It is a selfish and cruel act to nature and the animal itself.’

The Independent also ran an article, By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment than you might realise, which says that owning a pet can emit double the carbon emissions of a family’s electricity use and further refers to it as ‘destructive consumerism’. ‘Truth-telling about pets to friends can be a painful process but it is not something we should shy away from.’

CNN, not to be left out, said, Our pets are part of the climate problem. These tips can help you minimise their carbon pawprints…

‘Our four-legged friends don’t drive gas-guzzling SUVs or use energy-sucking appliances, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a climate impact … researchers have shown that pets play a significant role in the climate crisis.’

The article quotes a 2017 study, which keeps popping up.

‘…feeding dogs and cats creates the equivalent of around 64 million tons of carbon dioxide in the US each year. That’s roughly the same impact as 13.6 million cars on the road. And, if our furry friends formed a separate country, it would rank 5th in global meat consumption behind China, the US, Brazil, and Russia.’

Why not run the maths on ants? Or crickets? Or any other random animal which we share the planet with… Citing statistics like this makes it appear as if our pets are uniquely carbon aggressive, in the same way that politicians reciting Covid deaths in the absence of other deaths accentuated the perceived danger.

At least the CNN article didn’t advocate for deleting pets, instead, it wanted to start feeding them insects.

‘Insect-based pet foods can be nutritionally complete and are starting to come onto the market around the world. They can also be a solution for some pets that have food allergies to traditional protein sources,’ said a veterinarian for Vets for Climate Action.

I’m trying to imagine breaking the dietary news to my kangaroo-meat-loving puppy.

‘Can pets be part of a sustainable future?’ asks a Guardian. ‘The short, if unpopular, answer is probably not. Two German Shepherds use more resources just for their annual food needs than the average Bangladeshi uses each year in total. And while pet owners may disagree that Bangladeshis have more right to exist than their precious Schnookums, the truth is that pets serve little more societal purpose than keeping us company in an increasingly individualistic and socially isolated consumer society.’

Gosh. Who hurt the Guardian? They almost went full-North Korea with that misery-inducing rant.

It effectively goes on to ask if we’d value the company of dogs if we had a different political society.

‘Instead, many would argue that pets provide people with companionship, improve health, reduce stress, and even provide a reason to get out and meet people. But would this still hold true in a society where robust levels of social capital existed? And more so, is the continued ownership of pets actually preventing the rebuilding of community ties (after all, why invest one’s time and energy in opinionated people with differing views when one can instead spend time with a faithful dog that will enthusiastically amuse you any time you want)?’

The article then ponders the options of the masses eating their pets, sterilising them into extinction, or taxing pets so hard that only the rich can own them.

Eventually, the Guardian comes full circle with Kim Jong-Un, suggesting that people should own pets that provide by laying eggs, giving milk, or producing meat.

If ever there was evidence that the climate movement harboured shades of communist paranoia, we can see it in the way it speaks about our pets.

So, keep your little furry friends close.

And the next time you think about voting for an ‘eco’ politician, consider that after they’ve taken away your car, they’ll be after your pets.

To save the planet… Of course.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in