This House would limit the amount of food aid that developed nations can freely provide.

It is evident that nations, being representatives of the will of the populace, should be regulated for the same reason that the will of any individual should be regulated: in order to promote the right order of things. If it would be wrong for one person to do something, it is equally wrong for a state to do that same thing, for the state is nothing more than the embodiment of singular people, and, since wrongness should be destroyed at any opportunity, a state is, properly, to be stopped whenever it wishes to do something which would lead to such wrongness. From this reasoning it can be drawn that limitations on states are justified when their absence would result in a greater state of wrongness than their presence – laws are just when they promote what is right. What, then, is right? No moral system which proposes that it is more honourable to let leeches feed on the blood of the noble than it is to let them wither and die can hold any water, for they ignore the key principle of any good morality: might makes right. What good is any philosophy when it is clear that the most holy of men, by common standards, is nothing more than an ant in the eye of he with strength? The greatest kings, ruling with iron fists, were not stopped by the mere thought of petty “virtue” - what weight can the precious philosophies of old have when faced with the sword? All these illusions vanish as soon as the fists of the corporeal Gods strike down upon them and turn them into nothing more than dust – remnants of a misguided and ill culture.The weak are weak because they do not have the ability to survive on their own – the starving are starving because they do not have the ability to find food. This is their burden and their burden alone, and the concept of extending it to those who have actually achieved something with their lives is the most destructive and disgusting idea possible – it denigrates the strong by placing them on the same level as those who deserve nothing more than to wallow in their slow crawl towards oblivion. A pithy reminder of the effects of charity from Mein Kampf [1]: “But if among all these cripples there was one who was sound of limb he had to use all his strength to sustain the others and thus he himself was practically paralysed.”To quote Nietzsche, a German who has also recognized the impotence of “love” and “charity”, as he wrote in The Antichrist: “What is bad? Everything that is born of weakness […] The weak and the failures shall perish: first principle of our love of man. And they shall even be given every possible assistance […] What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and all the weak” [2]The idea of a developed (i.e. civilized and accomplished) nation giving out any sort of aid is preposterous. Such aid doesn't appear out of thin air – it must be twisted from its proper use of fueling the strong in order for it to be given to the weak. Even if the weak will ostensibly become beneficial to the strong after being helped, it is repugnant to let them actualize this state through any means other than their own pure and unadulterated wills. The most powerful man is not he who stands on the shoulders of others; the most powerful man stands alone over all, relying on none. The impoverished cannot truly be said to become worthy of respect if they do not rise out of the dirt alone. To help them is to extend a hand out to them – something without which they would be too frail to move an inch. If one of these wretched creatures did accept the help, it is not via their own merits that they would thrive – they are completely and totally indebted to the helper, and, thus, are slaves. If such slaves are useful to a master, they are useful only because the master is weak enough to have need for them. I have shown just how pitiful those who would need aid are – to suggest that it should still be given in order for the strong to reap the benefits is to say that the strong can find something of value in the subhuman filth. True power, the ideal that all nations and peoples should aim towards, does not and could not find any use for the wretched. It is for this reason that the ideal state would not even consider sustaining them for the benefit of its citizens – any citizen that would desire such a thing is weak enough to deserve to rot with the rest of those creatures. To quote the venerable Ragnar Redbeard's work Might is Right [3], “But that is a harsh philosophy? Nature is harsh, cruel, merciless to all unlovely things. Her smile is only for the Courageous, the Strong, the Beautiful and the All-Daring. You have no comfort for the 'poor and lowly,' the 'innocent ones,' the 'downtrodden[?]' The poor and lowly are a creeping pestilence — there are no innocent ones, and the downtrodden are the justly damned —sinners in a hell they've made. You praise the Strong, you glorify the Mighty ones? I do. They are Nature's noblemen. In them she delights: the All-Vanquishers! the Dauntless Ones!”What of states which do not value the strong? The answer is that they are as weak as the most malnourished leper. They actively fuel the ghouls that deserve to be wiped off of the earth, and, for that reason, it is the obligation of the truly noble state, the state which prizes the true Ubermensch over all else, to destroy such self-sacrificial nations – thus limiting the provision of free food aid both within itself and outside of itself. As such, the resolution is affirmed. [1] https://archive.org...[2] http://www.primitivism.com...[3] https://ia700407.us.archive.org...