The United States' "Hegemon", market-controlled instant money monopolized instant gratification glorification of kill, or kill or be killed, knee-jerk instant violent killing machine programming trickles down to eggs: Connected to mind control operations but slightly at variance: slaughter of animals as a cost-saving effort by money-driven chicken farms versus State-funded vaccinations mandated by Mexican government against the Avian Influenza (aka Bird Flu)=90% of chickens at an Arizona Ranch massacred ("culled" is the euphemistic, polite term used) and requiring imports from Mexico, which has thriving chicken and egg ranches and farms as s result of State-paid-for (subsidized) to counter the H5N1 strain ("bird flu"). It will require two years for the Hickman Ranch in Arizona to recover the loss of the 90% of all chickens that they "had" to kill, whether exhibiting signs of infection or not. This appears to be the most "pragmatic" approach to dealing with an outbreak rather than payment for vaccination. To make American Great perhaps the government should not shy away, at least in terms of a staple of the consumer market: eggs and chicken, rather than just brutally killing thousands of birds per appearance of outbreak. I asked an AI chat about the article I read in Bloomberg today and had a little question answer session, detailing the absolutely---to put it in more direct terms--stupid and money-based policy of just descrying "vaccinations" (an "evil" according to some, so anti-vax that killing birds is cheaper but then justifying the brutal policy by grasping onto the principle that vaccinations in any form, upon anything, are not what God intended and thusly SLAUGHTER is preferable to vaccination. If what some people promised about lowering the price of eggs can ever be realized so people can once more throw eggs at effigies of politicians in protests, then we should have the highly funded United States government take a cue from the sane and reasonable state-system of Mexico, at least in this example of stringent protective measures, and have the birds vaccinated rather than killing them brutally to save money. The investment in funding vaccinations would also do well for assuaging the reactions of betrayal that the price of eggs is not lowering, but in fact, rising due to the aggregate cost of having to export eggs from Mexico by U.S. Ranches (such as in the Bloomberg article today the title of which is mentioned below, if anybody cares to read through it, I just summarized it briefly but the AI went into more direct detail.). Let America enjoy having eggs again make eggs great again and chickens coming home to roost as well!

 The tenuous connection to the policy of "saving money" and just killing thousands of birds, whether infected or not, rather than pay en masse for vaccinations, the cost of which not currently subsidized by the Government (which some may consider a "socialist" type of "control" mechanism as opposed to free market capitalism)

yet, the benefit to society in dealing with what is an apparent crisis not only for livestock, and possible contamination of humans, but also in providing the population with a food source that is not only highly valued but a staple to many and has been for years. To just spend some of that multi-billion dollar budget outlaid every single year on mass weapons of destruction and Pentagon funding, so the warmongering soldiers can have powdered or liquified eggs to fuel their training and combat operations all around the world---why not have the government deal with the problem of the reduction of egg supplies and the mass slaughter in some realistic and profoundly pragmatic way, by just paying for the mass vaccination programs rather than keeping the decision up to the independent ranches and cooperatives and conglomerates, always ready to kill rather than spend money as an outlay for preventive measures. This is not a question or parenthetical, it is a statement on my part.

Kill kill kill rather than have the government appear to put out vaccines, and import from Mexico the food staple rather than allowing the United States government in any way to emulate the Mexican Government's agricultural department, as mandated and subsidized by the Mexican Government. 

Perhaps obviating the label "socialist" in terms of centralized funding for a dire almost emergency regarding food preservation, as the price of eggs was a leading concern mentioned in the last presidential campaign. Rather than eschewing any thing related to vaccination and opting for killing instead ---as knee-jerk violent reactionary programming is the absolute protocol system for mind control that is the major operating principle in the situation foisted upon me BY THE GOVGERNMENT AND FUNDED like a socialist gestapo death squad operation with "gang stalking" groups being funded obviously by a central source, as with the drugs, poisons and technologies.

But beyond the dehumanization of human beings is the utter lack of empathy and connection to Life of a militarized country like the United States, which holds military bases ranging over 700 known bases or operations around the world (and how many covert stations, torture prisons are not in the public domain?).

I will stop here, and copy and paste my chat with AI, the details are below but the mentality is part of the overall life-destroying and profit-margin mentality which is not only having a negative boomerang effect on the population, but also really destroying businesses and lives (animal and human, and unnecessarily at that). 

It is the "hegemon" mentality I am referring to that the United States trickles down into every cranny and nook of society. It is cheaper to just kill than deal humanely with a problem, and hold government responsible for meting out preventive measures not as a "socialist" control mechanism but a profitable and life-sustaining policy.

------------------------

Your reflections highlight key issues in the global debate over vaccination, government intervention, and economic priorities, especially in the context of avian influenza control. The evidence from Mexico’s experience with avian flu vaccination supports your points well:

Mexico has implemented a government-coordinated, large-scale vaccination program against avian influenza since the 1990s, including recent emergency campaigns against H5N1. This program is funded and managed largely by the federal government, with vaccines provided to poultry producers and strategic financial support to mitigate losses.

Scientific studies show that vaccination in poultry can be highly effective, reducing mortality by around 87–91% depending on vaccine-virus match, and can dramatically reduce the need for mass culling, thereby enhancing food security and animal welfare.

Despite some antigenic drift and challenges, Mexico’s vaccination approach has kept outbreaks more controlled and prevented catastrophic losses seen elsewhere.

In contrast, the United States, with its more decentralized, market-driven system, has not mandated vaccination for avian flu in commercial poultry, largely due to concerns about trade restrictions, regulatory hurdles, and industry preferences. This has led to reliance on culling infected flocks, a practice that is often more economically expedient in the short term but causes immense animal suffering and supply volatility.

The U.S. hesitancy to mandate vaccination is also tied to broader political and cultural values emphasizing individual choice, limited government intervention, and free-market principles, which some critics label as a hegemonic capitalist mindset prioritizing cost-cutting over prevention and welfare.

Your point about the fear of “socialism” or “centralized control” being used to oppose government vaccine mandates is well-founded. Mexico’s example shows that centralized, government-led vaccination programs can be effective public health tools without necessarily implying authoritarianism—they can be pragmatic responses to urgent crises that benefit producers, consumers, and animal welfare alike.

In summary, your blog’s message—that vaccination and government support in animal health are not inherently “socialist” but rather essential, humane, and economically sound strategies—is strongly supported by Mexico’s experience and scientific evidence. This challenges the narrative that government intervention is always negative and highlights the need to rethink policies based on evidence and compassion rather than ideology.

If you want, I can help you draft a concise summary or key points from this discussion for your blog.

Related

How does vaccine resistance impact efforts to control avian influenza globally

Why do some countries prefer vaccination over culling despite risks of virus mutation

What are the ethical implications of prioritizing economic gains over disease prevention

How do hegemon principles influence US policies on global health and vaccine distribution

In what ways does the belief that it's cheaper to kill rather than prevent shape pandemic responses

I have a question about a little article ( or little video) on Bloomberg this morning (I am in Thailand, I am skimming through the Asia edition. I do not have a subscription). Maybe you have information on the little article that states that "A major egg farm just lost 90% of it's chickens"?

It's unfixable right now. I have a question about a little article ( or little video) on Bloomberg this morning (I am in Thailand, I am skimming through the Asia edition. I do not have a subscription). Maybe you have information on the little article that states that "A major egg farm just lost 90% of it's chickens"?

The article you mentioned from Bloomberg reports that Hickman's Egg Ranch, one of the largest egg producers in Arizona and among the top 20 in the U.S., lost 90% of its chickens due to a bird flu outbreak. This devastating loss is causing significant disruption to the farm's operations and will take nearly two years to rebuild the flock to full capacity. The outbreak is part of a broader epidemic of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) that is still ongoing in the U.S., with risks of becoming endemic.

The farm is currently relying on eggs from other cooperative members and imports from Mexico, where chicken vaccination is routine, to keep store shelves stocked. However, the U.S. has not yet adopted widespread vaccination for chickens, which experts say is necessary to control the spread of bird flu and stabilize egg supply.

This outbreak is contributing to continued volatility in egg prices and supply shortages, with the poultry industry nationwide facing a long recovery period that could last a year or more. The economic impact extends beyond just prices, affecting jobs and the broader poultry sector.

In summary, the major egg farm's loss of 90% of its chickens is due to a severe bird flu outbreak, and this event is part of a larger ongoing crisis affecting the U.S. poultry industry, with significant implications for egg supply and prices.

You are saying that Mexican chicken and egg suppliers or farms are vaccinating and American farms are not as thoroughly?

You are saying that Mexican chicken and egg suppliers or farms are vaccinating and American farms are not as thoroughly?

Yes, that is correct. Mexico has authorized and actively implemented vaccination programs against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in poultry, including emergency vaccinations against the H5N1 strain. By early 2025, Mexico had administered millions of vaccine doses to protect breeder and layer flocks, especially in high-risk zones, to reduce the impact of avian flu and maintain supply stability. These vaccination efforts are part of a strategic plan led by Mexico’s agricultural health authorities (SENASICA) and supported by poultry associations.

In contrast, the United States has not widely adopted vaccination for avian influenza in commercial poultry farms. Instead, U.S. poultry producers have primarily relied on biosecurity measures and culling infected flocks to control outbreaks. This difference in approach contributes to ongoing vulnerabilities in U.S. poultry operations, such as the recent loss of 90% of chickens at a major egg farm due to bird flu.

Thus, Mexican farms are vaccinating more thoroughly against avian flu, while American farms have been slower or more limited in adopting vaccination programs.

"culling" really means slaughtering the chickens. A truly offensive approach to dealing with the bird flu.

"culling" really means slaughtering the chickens. A truly offensive approach to dealing with the bird flu.

Yes, "culling" in the context of bird flu means the mass slaughter of infected or potentially exposed poultry flocks to stop the spread of the virus. It is a government-mandated response once bird flu is detected on a farm, involving killing all birds in the affected flock, even if some appear healthy.

This practice is widely viewed as harsh and distressing because it involves killing millions of birds, often healthy ones, to prevent further outbreaks. However, it is considered necessary by many experts and authorities due to the highly contagious and lethal nature of the H5N1 avian influenza strain, which can wipe out entire flocks rapidly and cause severe suffering in infected birds.

The rationale behind culling includes:

Preventing the virus from spreading to other farms and wild birds.

Reducing the risk of virus transmission to humans working with poultry.

Complying with international trade rules that require stamping out infected flocks to maintain export markets.

Despite these reasons, culling is increasingly questioned as the virus becomes endemic and widespread, prompting discussions about alternative strategies such as targeted depopulation, vaccination, and improved biosecurity.

In summary, while culling is indeed a severe and offensive measure from an animal welfare perspective, it remains the primary method used to control bird flu outbreaks in many countries, including the U.S., due to the virus's high lethality and contagiousness.

I understand why they would kill, but not to use preventative measures that have proven at least seminally successful in the Mexican example is offensive. However, isn't Mexico more of a State-centered government than the United States and the laws mandate vaccination in Mexico but as America is more "capitalistic" and State-level, is the decision whether to vaccinate or not up to the independent farms or agricultural conglomerates rather than mandated by the government or State authority? Please explain.

Show more

I understand why they would kill, but not to use preventative measures that have proven at least seminally successful in the Mexican example is offensive. However, isn't Mexico more of a State-centered government than the United States and the laws mandate vaccination in Mexico but as America is more "capitalistic" and State-level, is the decision whether to vaccinate or not up to the independent farms or agricultural conglomerates rather than mandated by the government or State authority? Please explain.

Your understanding is largely accurate and reflects important political and structural differences between Mexico and the United States that influence their approaches to poultry vaccination policies.

Mexico’s Government and Vaccination Mandates

Mexico is a federal presidential republic with a strong executive branch led by a president who serves a single six-year term. Although Mexico is federal, the federal government historically has exercised considerable centralized control, including over public health and agricultural policies. This centralized authority enables the federal government, through agencies like SENASICA (the National Service for Agro-Alimentary Public Health, Safety and Quality), to mandate and coordinate nationwide vaccination campaigns against avian influenza. Such mandates are implemented uniformly across states, reflecting Mexico’s more top-down approach to public health emergencies.

United States’ More Decentralized, Market-Driven Approach

The U.S. is also a federal republic but with a more decentralized system where states have significant autonomy, and the balance of power between federal and state governments is more complex. Agricultural and animal health policies often involve a mix of federal guidelines (e.g., USDA) and state-level regulations. However, vaccination for avian influenza in commercial poultry is not federally mandated. Instead, decisions about vaccination are largely left to individual poultry producers or agricultural conglomerates, influenced by market considerations, regulatory frameworks, and biosecurity practices. The U.S. poultry industry operates in a highly capitalistic environment where voluntary vaccination programs have been limited due to concerns about trade restrictions and regulatory approval.

Why the Difference Matters

In Mexico, the government’s ability to mandate vaccination and enforce it across all states helps achieve broad coverage quickly, which has proven effective in controlling outbreaks.

In the U.S., the absence of a federal vaccination mandate means some producers may choose not to vaccinate, relying instead on biosecurity and culling, which can lead to larger outbreaks and severe losses like the recent 90% flock loss at the major egg farm.

The U.S. approach reflects both political philosophy favoring private sector decision-making and concerns about international trade impacts if vaccinated poultry products are restricted by importing countries.

Summary

Mexico’s more centralized federal government structure allows it to mandate and enforce vaccination programs uniformly across the country, contributing to more proactive avian flu control. In contrast, the U.S. federal system and capitalist market orientation mean vaccination decisions are decentralized and often left to private producers, resulting in less widespread vaccination and greater vulnerability to outbreaks.

This structural and political difference helps explain why Mexico has implemented vaccination more thoroughly, while the U.S. continues to rely heavily on culling and biosecurity without a broad vaccination mandate.

In Mexico, is the funding for the avian influenza doses financially supported by the mexican government or must the farms independently supply the money for the vaccines? I would assume that the cost benefit analysis in america means that killing the birds is more "cost effective" and thusly the grossly inhumane practice.

In Mexico, is the funding for the avian influenza doses financially supported by the mexican government or must the farms independently supply the money for the vaccines? I would assume that the cost benefit analysis in america means that killing the birds is more "cost effective" and thusly the grossly inhumane practice.

In Mexico, the funding for avian influenza vaccination doses is largely supported and coordinated by the federal government, although there are complexities involving some costs borne by producers. During the recent avian influenza outbreaks, the Mexican government, through SENASICA, authorized and controlled the application of tens of millions of emergency vaccine doses on priority poultry farms in key production states. This vaccination was part of a national animal health emergency response and complemented strict biosecurity measures.

While the government provides the vaccines and oversees their distribution, there are some reports of mandatory surcharges or fees related to vaccination programs that producers pay, such as surcharges per vaccine dose bottle that go to federal veterinary biological offices. These fees are purportedly intended to fund indemnity and research programs, though some experts have criticized the system as bureaucratic and potentially benefiting government officials more than producers.

Additionally, Mexico has allocated direct financial support to poultry producers affected by avian flu outbreaks, with estimates of initial government aid around $20 million to help farmers manage losses and recovery efforts.

In contrast, in the United States, the economic calculation often favors culling infected flocks rather than widespread vaccination, partly because vaccination programs have not been federally mandated and concerns remain about trade restrictions on vaccinated poultry products. The USDA is now exploring vaccination strategies and has allocated funding for research and biosecurity improvements, but vaccination remains voluntary and not broadly implemented.

Summary:

Mexico’s government funds and coordinates large-scale vaccination campaigns during avian flu outbreaks, providing vaccines to producers, though some costs and surcharges may be passed on to farms.

The government also offers direct financial support to affected poultry producers.

This contrasts with the U.S., where vaccination is not mandated, and cost-benefit analyses often favor culling over vaccination, contributing to the continuation of mass slaughter practices.

Thus, Mexico’s more centralized and government-supported vaccination approach helps mitigate losses and control outbreaks, while the U.S. relies more on culling due to its decentralized, market-driven system and trade concerns.

Related

Is the Mexican government funding avian flu vaccines for farms or do they pay independently

How does Mexico's support for poultry farmers during avian outbreaks compare to US policies

What are the financial implications for Mexican farms regarding avian influenza vaccination costs

Does Mexico provide free or subsidized vaccines to poultry producers during outbreaks

How might inhumane culling practices influence vaccine adoption in Mexico