"Why It's Your Moral Duty To Follow A Low Carb Diet!"

A Shocking Report from Tom Weegun,
Founder of the Pro-Carb Institute

Low carb diets are all the rage now. And there are some good reasons for this. The latest studies say that low carb diets are healthful, and will help you lose weight.

Find out the real reason why you should stop eating carbs!

The thing is, a new study might come along tomorrow and say the opposite. Maybe a new study will demonstrate that low carb diets cause cancer, or heart disease, or cause people to gain weight in the long run. Frankly, I don't know whether this will happen or not. And, frankly, I couldn't care less.

I've been following a low carb diet for years now, and my reasons for being on a low carb diet have nothing to do with my health. It's great if my low carb diet will extend my life, and help me maintain a healthy weight, but even if it doesn't ... low carb dieting is just the right thing to do.

Most people are completely unaware of the ethical reasons to adopt a low carb diet , and I want to begin to remedy that sad situation with this article.

Let's begin with a little history, and a woman named Molly Edwards.

You are unlikely to hear about heroes like Molly in public schools that are controlled by the United States Department of Agriculture.

But she is a great hero, in spite of the fact that she did not succeed in her lifetime. Here is a story of . . .

A Protest That Backfired

She's about to get hit!

Perhaps you've seen pictures of someone pouring red paint on another person's fur coat. This is a common form of protest used by groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). The red paint symbolizes the blood of the animals that had to die to

provide the fur for the coat. The gesture implies that the owner of the coat is responsible for the death of the animal that once wore the fur.

But this form of protest is not original with animal rights groups. In the early 1700s in New England the original protesters were pro-carb protesters who were alarmed at the increase in the amount of wheat, barley, and other grains being slaughtered for breakfast items like pancakes and waffles.

Molly Edwards was probably the person who did the most to raise awareness for the pro-carb cause, but her efforts backfired tragically.

Molly scoped out breakfast inns, and observed the clothing worn by the waitresses. She then fashioned herself similar clothes, entered the inns, and posed as a waitress herself. She waited for guests to order pancakes or waffles, and then, like a PETA protester with a bucket of paint, she approached their table and poured a sticky sweet substance on their breakfasts.

The origin of this barbaric practice dates back to the 1700s

The substance was the blood of a maple tree -- commonly called "maple syrup" today.

The implication was obvious.

At first guests were horrified, and sales of pancakes and waffles dropped off for a while. But, in a horrible twist that shows the true depravity of human nature, people started to develop a taste for this tree blood.

Soon inns throughout New England offered "maple syrup" to their guests for breakfast. And sadly today all over the world people now willingly pour the blood of innocent trees over the bodies of innocent plants before they eat them.

But Molly's efforts were not in vain. She was an inspiration for both animal rights groups and for the modern pro-carb movement.

Now things have definitely gotten worse for carbs since Molly's day. Let's look at some of the tragic circumstances carbs find themselves in today. We're talking about . . .

Overcrowding, Clipped Beaks,
And Clipped Tips

A chicken with a clipped beak.

Another common practice of animal rights activists is to show pictures of animals being mistreated. One of the most common pictures is of a chicken with a clipped beak. The reason farmers give for this practice is that, without such clipping, the chickens will gouge out each other's eyes

But animal rights groups, such as PETA, claim that beak clipping constitutes inhumane treatment.

Peter Hummer, president of WHETA (Worldwide Heroes for the Ethical Treatment of Amaranth), a leading Pro-Carb group, agrees with the animal rights groups, and supports efforts to stop this needless pain for chickens.

"But," he adds, "we should never lose sight of the fact that many more snack chips are victims of 'tip clipping' than chickens are victims of beak clipping."

What is "tip clipping?" Well, some will criticize me for showing such shocking pictures, but a picture really is worth a thousand words. Look at the Doritos chip in the picture to the right. Notice the mutilated form of this chip. A normal happy chip would look pretty much like a perfect triangle. But this is the grotesque form many chips ultimately take before they are eaten.

Let the horror of this image sink in.

And, if you think this is an isolated instance, think again. Some researchers estimate that roughly 40% of all Doritos chips come out of the bag mutilated in this way, or even worse!

Crowded cattle.

Animal rights groups also wish to raise awareness about the crowded conditions animals often face. If you look at the cattle in this picture, they have barely enough room to turn around, and you have to suspect that they are standing or lying in their own manure and urine much of the time.

But Hummer points out that many carbs, such as candy and cookies, are kept in much more crowded conditions. According to Hummer, "candy is shelved in horrific conditions. The pieces are shoved together so tightly, they sometimes stick to each other and actually melt into one piece!"

I know you probably could have gone the rest of the day without having to think about that image. But should we hide from the truth, just because it's painful to confront?

Some snacks have it better than others. Mike and Ikes have fairly roomy boxes, though people have been known to shake them silly. Candy bars, though, are considerably more densely packed into their boxes. But the most hideous case is the case of licorice. Especially "Red Vines".

Does this give you nightmares?

Hummer notes:

Now you've heard it said . . .

"All Is Fair In Love And War." But Is It?

Can you spot the soldier?

I don't know if you've noticed this recent trend, but American soldiers now use grasses such as wheat and barley for camouflage. Why do they do this? Basically it's because it keeps the troops safe. People in other countries respect these plants and aren't apt to shoot at soldiers hiding behind carbs. But is it right to do this?

When asked about this Hummer remarked, "It's just like dressing up in a cow suit when fighting a battle against Hindus. You really shouldn't do that kind of thing. But here they are, camouflaged in carbs. What can I say?"

When questioned about his analogy he continued, "well, maybe it's more like taking little kids from the orphanage and placing them around the weapons factory so it won't be bombed. Yeah, I think that's a better analogy."

Well, whatever the best analogy is, it's definitely a controversial policy. And it's a policy that was snuck through congress as an amendment to the big Social Security bill passed by an overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Republicans in 1988.

And you know what they say: when there's no one to blame, we're all to blame.

Now, what some people really want to know is . . .

Where's The Sport?

Animal rights groups often ask a rhetorical question to hunters: "Where's the sport, Sport?"

They imply with their question that hunting has lost it's element of sport. Modern weapons are just too powerful to give the animals a fighting chance.

Hunters who think they are "getting in touch with their more primitive selves" are kidding themselves when they go out with high-powered rifles and satellite positioning tools.

"Bambi" hit a home run for the animal rights cause.

But animal rights groups have enjoyed some shifting of public opinion. The seminal event was the 1942 release of "Bambi". Many would-be hunters were saddened by the needless slaughter of Bambi's mother, and hunting of animals waned in popularity shortly after. Now if hunting animals is unsportsmanlike, hunting carbs seems especially so. What chance does a stationary stalk of wheat or sugarcane have when it is planted in a field and taken down by a combine the size of a house?

But carb consumption has actually increased since 1942. And we're still waiting for an animated production to do for the pro-carb cause what "Bambi" did for the animal rights cause.

In the 1990s we got excited when the M&M® commercials appeared presenting anthropomorphic animations of M&M® candies.

We were greatly excited and hoped this would convince many would-be carb eaters to think twice about their wanton carb consumption. But, alas, we were sorely disappointed, when sales of M&Ms® actually rose substantially in the wake of these commercials. Like the Maple Syrup Protests of the 1700s, this effort seems to have backfired tragically.

This would-be pro-carb hero struck out.

Many animal rights activists weren't surprised that the M&M® commercials didn't curb carb consumption. That's because they like to make . . .

A Distinction Without A Difference

Animal rights activists like to say that it's ok to eat plants, but not animals. But I want to ask them, "What's the difference?"

Animal rights activists often throw around the word "sentience" as if that explains something.

Now that's a big word, "sentience". I'm not entirely sure I know what it means. But the way the animal rights groups tend to use the word it seems to me to be just a fancy way of saying that carbs don't have feelings. I don't believe it for a minute, and you shouldn't either.

Most people can tell which piece of licorice is the happy one.

A landmark (but largely unknown) study, conducted by John Philips-Meyers in 1993, and published in the July 1994 issue of the Midwest Journal of Carb Studies, tried to determine whether carbs had feelings. In the most definitive of his experiments Philips-Meyers arranged various snack foods and asked subjects to try to determine whether the snack item was "happy", "sad" or "neither". And 87% of people were able to determine the true feeling of the carb (determined previously by an independent method).

Random guesses would have yielded only a 33% success rate, so the results were well above what would be expected from chance alone.

Sadly, these results are rarely reported. And there's a good reason for this. Philips-Meyers disappeared shortly after releasing these results. And others trying to publish similar results have received threatening letters with mysterious USDA watermarks.

Also, don't try to find a copy of the July 1994 issue of the Midwest Journal of Carb Studies. You won't find it. Or any issue of that journal for that matter. The Journal was shut down in 1995 for some vaguely worded "safety reasons", and all of their past issues were tracked down and destroyed.

Where is Philips-Meyers now?

The smart thing would be to keep silent. But I can't do that. I figure my best chance of staying out of trouble with the USDA is to speak out loudly and tell you whom to look for if I suddenly disappear. I'm hoping they'll be smart enough not to do anything drastic while people are looking. Time will tell if this is wise or foolish, but I can't stay silent any longer.

That's why it's time for . . .

A Call To Action

We at the Pro-Carb Institute are not against carbs. We advocate a low carb diet, but we are not against carbs. We love carbs. We love them enough not to eat them.

Or we try not to eat carbs. Like you, we are human -- unfortunately. We have the lust for sweets coursing through our primitive veins just like everyone else. But we try.

If only we could completely internalize the wisdom of the hawk or the lion. They never eat carbs. But alas, we're humans. I mean we act like heartless cows half the time munching on defenseless plants.

But we must try. For the sake of the carb, we must try.

And here are three ways you can help the plight of the helpless carb.

Please read all three -- the third one tells you how to get your FREE GIFT!

It has been my pleasure to share this information with you. I hope this information will make a world of difference for carbs all around the world. But even if I have changed the mind of only one person, it has been worth it.

Sincerely ;)

Tom

(c) Copyright 2004 by The Pro-Carb Institute. All Rights Reserved.