The War on Food: The Geo-Engineering Assault




In my War on Food: The Nanotechnological Assault post I mentioned that I think the three most dangerous technologies deployed against the 99% and the global food supply are Genetically Modified Organisms, Nanotechnology and Geo-engineering. Some people took offense with my language in that post — so I remind you, dear reader, I am an activist and protester not a corporate, research or academic scientist. The general population doesn’t pay attention to the scientists with their inscrutable scientific terms and their proper etiquette anyway. That is why I, as an activist and protester, must address these issues in a more forceful, forthright and emotional manner. Nevertheless, my points are just as valid as any you will hear. I am only connecting the emotional to the logical in the hopes that such a holistic view will wake people up to the seriousness of an issue they don’t even know is an issue. The war on food is real. Wake up before we’re eating Soylent Green, yo.


You can clearly see the geo-engineering incident and result in the lower-center of this satellite image from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Most people that know the term geo-engineering do not immediately associate it with food — but food is the primary reason corporations and governments are using this technology. Most people associate geo-engineering with climate change, but the primary threat that climate change poses is to global harvests — thus it is food that is the bottom line. If you mess with the climate you mess with the supply of food — it is really that simple.


What is geo-engineering? Simply put it is the endeavor to change the ecology of the biosphere to be safer and more productive for humans. It is an all-encompassing term that includes techniques that try to accomplish many different goals. Some of these goals include removing carbon dioxide from the air and ways to change the energy balance of the planet by increasing the amount of sunlight reflected back to space (also known as solar radiation management (SRM)). Other types of geo-engineering attempts are to induce or prevent precipitation, increase or decrease storm intensities, and to change the composition of the atmosphere and oceans to decrease pollutants or to increase favorable climate conditions for our crop harvests and for our survival as a species. Geo-engineering also includes changing the course and size of rivers and lakes, modifying vegetation cover and composition, and changing terrain features and animal eco-systems. Urbanization and agriculture are also geo-engineering endeavors even if we do not usually regard them as such. Unintentional geo-engineering is happening all around us with every new mall that is built, every new parking lot, every new road, and even every new house. One of the most destructive geo-engineering projects on the personal level is your front lawn — as it destroys the natural biodiversity of your local eco-system. All these, and more, also fall under the term: terra-forming. Corporations and governments don’t like to use the terra-forming term because it hits too close to home. The general population can understand that they have a huge stake in the goals of terra-forming, but geo-engineering is a vague and fuzzy term that doesn’t raise a red flag of caution for the masses. The term geo-engineering seems like something akin to building bridges and dams — way over there somewhere —  things the general public has been conditioned to accept as necessary and innocuous. But even bridges and dams have ecological consequences that are extremely destructive to regional eco-systems and the global biosphere.


The expressed goals of geo-engineering, just like the expressed goals of GMOs and nanotechnology, are benign and beneficial. The problems arise with the actual implementation — the whys, whats and wherefores.

Geoengineering schematic

The first and foremost criticism of geo-engineering is that we simply do not know enough about global ecology to be messing around with it. Ecology is a relatively new science. True, Theophrastus, the father of botany and philosophical heir to Aristotle, described the basics of ecological science over 2,400 years ago, but the modern focus on ecology did not gain mainstream acceptance until the 1970’s — and even now there is a concerted effort to discredit ecology as a science by political and religious fundamentalists, as well as powerful mainstream corporate interests such as the coal, oil & gas industries and the global banking and stock market cartels. Ecologists themselves will admit that their knowledge of the forces and complexities of global ecology, as well as regional ecologies, is extremely limited at best. There is still academic debate over what actually is the specific definition of the word “ecology”, how exactly does any specific eco-system’s biodiversity work in detail, and what exactly constitutes a specific bioregion. The fact is that ecology is an inter-disciplinary study that includes all the other sciences. It is a huge task to be a general studies ecologist — a task of a lifetime. There hasn’t yet been a definitive ecological work that fits all the pieces together — we are not even close to that happening.

This first criticism details the dangers inherent to humanity when geo-engineering experiments are carried out. The general population is not ever notified, advised, or warned that a geo-engineering experiment is being undertaken where they live, work and play. There are no controls in place to hold the experimenters accountable, and there are no failsafes in place to insure the health and safety of the people, animals and plants within the region of a geo-engineered undertaking. All of the current and past geo-engineering experiments are done in secret, and attempts to make the public aware are ridiculed as conspiracy theories. Make no mistake — intentional massive geo-engineering is real and has been in progress world-wide for quite some time.

chemtrails, NASA pic

National Aeronautics and Space Administration satellite photo showing a regional geo-engineering project in the skies above southeastern United States.

Another criticism of geo-engineering is that the people and organizations involved have demonstrated they cannot be trusted with the welfare of the public. This criticism centers around the for-profit goals of the experimenters. People such as Bill Gates and Russ George have been outed as being principles involved in geo-engineering for their own personal motives and financial profit. These people are not interested in the public good, as has been amply demonstrated by their past and current actions even though they operate under the guise of charities, humanitarians and philanthropists. Rather, these people are dedicated to promote their individual power and vision of eugenics, capitalism and politics.

A still more urgent criticism of geo-engineering is that the governments of the United States, Russia, China and others are using this fledgling science to further military goals. These military projects are aimed at the general populations of enemy nations, and are intended to destabilize the people’s health, the country’s economy and the region’s agricultural and ecological infrastructure. We can see immediately that these geo-engineering projects have the potential to cause long-term regional catastrophe and cascading global disasters simply because they are intended to be destructive. One thing we definitely know is fact in the science of ecology is that everything is connected in the global ecology and so it is impossible to wall off one region from another. What happens one place in the world has effects all over the world. This is popularly known as The Butterfly Effect. But we are not talking butterflys here, we are talking massive military attacks on the ecology of a region.


So, what are the specifics? First I will tell you about a method of geo-engineering I consider safe and sane: biochar. Biochar is a substance made from agricultural residues such as dried corn stalks, grasses, rice hulls, coffee pulp, cow manure and wood chips. The Black Earth Project uses biochar in a non-profit, social enterprise initiative to help Rwandan farmers mitigate the effects of climate change and develop a sustainable coffee industry. It is a project of Radio Lifeline, Re:char and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.. Biochar is produced through the process of burning of dried biomass in a low or zero oxygen environment, called pyrolysis. This process prevents combustion and the usual release of carbon dioxide, black carbon and other greenhouse gases associated with traditional methods of charcoal production. A two year trial study concludes that biochar can increase crop yields, reduce nutrient leaching, help retain moisture, reduce soil acidity and improve surrounding water quality. It also significantly reduces the need for additional irrigation and fertilizer inputs. Biochar also seems to be an effective approach to carbon sequestration. Biochar is also being developed in the public domain — which means everyone benefits from the knowledge. This kind of geo-engineering is often termed “soft geo-engineering”, but I would rather see it described as “sane”. I think you can also see why governments, corporations and billionaires are not particularly interested — the potential for huge profits or destabilizing the enemy are nil.


On the other hand we have “hard” geo-engineering which ostensibly seeks to ameliorate the climate disruption our unintentional geo-engineering has done. One of the primary aims of current geo-engineering efforts is to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Once removed, the carbon dioxide has to be put somewhere. The two main targets for sequestering the captured carbon dioxide is to pump it underground and to put it into the ocean. Both places present problems — too much carbon dioxide anywhere is a problem, but that concept has not yet sunk in — or maybe it is just that money has made the geo-engineers turn a blind eye to anything except what they are getting paid to do.


The University of Alabama is working with the National Carbon Capture Center through The Southern Company partnered with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Denbury Resources, Electric Power Research Institute, Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership, Burlington Northern, Parker Towing, Norfolk Southern, Southern Natural Gas and National Energy Technology Laboratory to bury 150,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year for two years within a no longer productive oil field. While 150,000 tons a year sounds like a lot, it actually is a drop in the bucket. The Southern Company alone is responsible for 172 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases released into the atmosphere every year through its coal-burning power plants. The National Carbon Capture Center was created by the Department of Energy to find ways to “clean” coal, and keep the coal companies in the mining and energy industries. The Southern Company, aside from being the single worst greenhouse gas emitter in the United States, is a $59 billion energy corporation that also operates three new nuclear power plants. The University itself, while refusing the restrictive contracts demanded by British Petroleum after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, has since then taken millions of dollars from BP through grants filtering down through other organizations such as the BP/The Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative. The University used these grant monies to research the after-effects of the oil spill, and concluded that Alabama’s coastal areas are back to normal and everything is A-OK. Just as easily will it put its stamp of approval on this corporate carbon sequestration project. The University has committed to monitor the sequestration for three years after the last carbon dioxide is pumped into the old oil field to make sure none of it escapes its underground prison. The University thus removes all the corporations from any legal responsibility involving the project. At the end of the three years the University will pronounce the area safe, turn its back on it and hope the carbon dioxide stays where it was put for many thousands of years. Regardless if it does or not, the University, the corporations and the government organizations will not be legally liable for any problems they may have caused to happen after the three year period — nor are any of them required to monitor the site.


What are the risks of burying carbon dioxide? The companies involved tell us that the risks are minimal — but what are the risks? There are transportation risks, as the carbon dioxide must be brought from the source to the burying ground. These risks mainly revolve around leaks and the environmental impact of pipeline building. The companies involved say these are the primary risks, and they have the technology and safety checks in place to prevent anything serious from happening (just like the oil & gas companies tell us even after 13 major leaks in just one month this Spring). They tell us that once underground the carbon dioxide will stay where it is put for tens of thousands of years until it is mineralized. We are also told that leakage from underground storage will be contained to less than 1% of the volume per thousand years — if you can believe a report paid for by a coal and nuclear energy corporation that is the worst polluter in the country.

Tree Kill 1

Long Valley tree kill zone on Mammoth Mountain, California

However, the reality of risks are different from what we are told by the companies involved. Once the carbon dioxide is pumped underground there is the potential for the plume to migrate into the water supply — thus rendering the water undrinkable, as the plume will also include toxic greenhouse gases as standard operating procedure. There is also the possibility of a natural or hydrofracking-type seismic event causing a catastrophic eruption of carbon dioxide such as happened to natural subterranean carbon dioxide pockets at Lake Nyos and Lake Monoun in Cameroon, as well as other places closer to home like Mammoth Mountain, California. The carbon dioxide “burp” from Lake Nyos in 1986 killed more than 1700 people and 3500 livestock up to 25 km away within minutes. The University and its partners assure us that proper safety precautions will be in place to prevent such a catastrophe from happening. Yeah, right. Just like BP said that the Deepwater Horizon oil project was safe, and if anything did happen they could handle it with minimal ecological damage.


A typical scene within 25 kilometers of Lake Nyos minutes after the carbon dioxide “burp” in 1986

OK, so what about sequestering the carbon dioxide in the ocean? Proponents say that the ocean is huge and can absorb all the carbon dioxide we put into it. Yeah, right. Just like it can absorb all the trash and pollution we have already put into it? You have heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, right? Have you also heard that the ocean has already been absorbing 30% of all the extra carbon dioxide we’ve been pumping into the atmosphere? And that there have already been detrimental effects? The world ocean is becoming more acidic, making it harder for shell forming organisms to make their shells. This includes coral reefs and plankton as well as snails, clams, crabs and lobsters. But it doesn’t stop there — everything is connected in the global ecology. Coral reefs are home to 9 million ocean species, including 4 thousand different types of fish. Eliminate coral reefs and you eliminate 9 million other species, and you eliminate the countless species that depend upon those 9 million . . . and very quickly you get to humans. Coral reefs are already in dire straits with 20% of all the world’s coral reefs killed off in the last few decades, and 50% of the remainder are in extreme danger of a die-off from a wide array of runaway climate conditions. The tipping point for corals is very close at hand.


A dead coral reef at Monga Bay in The Philippines — notice there is no life at all except algae.


A live coral reef at Riviera Maya in Mexico — notice all the different species of life.

Now, the proponents of ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide will argue that they intend to inject the carbon dioxide deep into the ocean, where there are no coral reefs. They say this method will form lakes of carbon dioxide that will stay down deep due to the pressure and temperature of the surrounding water. They also say the carbon dioxide will gradually dissolve into the deep water over several thousand years. However, none of the proponents are addressing the issue of ocean chemistry and, even if ocean sequestration is successful, what will the change in the chemical composition of the ocean mean for marine life and for every other biological and biospheric cycle that includes the ocean. The ocean is vital to all life on this planet. Not only will all deep water life be endangered by this method — and hence all life above it also —  but we are back to seismic activity dislodging a huge lake of carbon dioxide to catastrophic and immediate effects to all life in its path. Have you seen the topography of the ocean floor? Take a look:


Notice all the fractures, ridges, valleys and mountain ranges — they indicate quite a lot of seismic activity.

Nobody can promise a huge lake of billions or trillions of tons of carbon dioxide will stay where it is put and cause no environmental damage. Nobody can promise that they can handle any emergency situation that may arise. Nobody can promise that the change in ocean chemistry will not affect the world’s food supply. Nobody can promise anything regarding ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide except that it won’t work as advertised.


November 2009 surface temperature comparison against the 1951-80 average

Speaking of promises, Bill Gates is known for his hollow promises about the abilities of Microsoft products. Nowadays Gates is involved primarily in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — a supposed charity. The foundation has a long history of double-dealing, duplicitous charity work, cronyism and corruption. In effect, the Foundation continues and perfects the Microsoft Model of con-artistry, I mean, Business. Besides being involved with Monsanto and the Rockefeller Foundation in foisting The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa and its GMO-everywhere agenda on Africans, Gates has funneled millions of dollars into geo-engineering research, as well. He is also even more heavily invested in a $5.5 billion patent-trolling company called Intellectual Ventures that is involved in at least two geo-engineering projects. One is known as the “StratoShield,” an improbably archaic, but typical for Bill Gates, 17th century kinda invention — a 19-mile-long hose suspended by helium balloons that spews sun-blocking sulfur dioxide particles into the sky. The object of this sulphur seeding is to simulate the atmospheric cooling of volcanic emissions. Volcanic blasts are historically associated with climate change: a notorious example is the eruption of Mount Tambora, in what is now Indonesia.  Mount Tambura’s eruption in 1815 was followed by Europe’s notorious “year without a summer” the following year. 1816 witnessed widespread harvest failure, famine and disease. The unintended consequences of geo-engineering undertakings to mimic and control the result of these natural events will be as far-reaching as volcanic incidents are themselves. A poorly thought out project could kill millions of people. Computer simulations done by Rutgers University meteorologist Alan Robock concluded that geo-engineered sulfate clouds generated to increase crop harvests in Africa (where the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa will be forcing the use of GMOs) could weaken the summer monsoons in Asia and Africa, thereby reducing the rainfall that normally irrigates the food crops of billions of people there. Such a reduction in rainfall would be a catastrophe that could induce a large scale famine that could starve millions of people and cause mass movements of refugees and more wars over resources.


Annual mean comparison of 2012 to 1951-80 average

The second project Intellectual Ventures is known to be working on is a secret technique (a certain type of cloud seeding, perhaps) that can supposedly blunt the force of hurricanes. Intellectual Ventures has multi-billion dollar funding from Microsoft, Intel, Sony, Nokia, Apple, Google, SAP, Nvidia,and eBay. Intellectual Ventures also has some of the biggest names from those corporations working in their administration. In fact, the co-founders of Intellectual Ventures come direct from the duopoly of Microsoft and Intel: Nathan Myhrvold and Edward Jung of Microsoft and Peter Detkin of Intel. There is a fourth co-founder of Intellectual Ventures that keeps those three out of legal trouble, and he is Gregory Gorder of Perkins Coie — the law firm that represents Boeing, Microsoft,, Starbucks, Costco, Craigslist, Google, Facebook, Intel, Twitter, AT&T, Zillow, REI, UPS, Expedia, Safeco, T-Mobile, Nintendo, The Democratic National Committee, Barack Obama and nearly all Democratic members of Congress, the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Osama bin Laden’s driver and bodyguard Salim Ahmed Hamden, as well as Intellectual Ventures itself, among other high profile people and corporations.  Check it out, yo — all of those connections easily verified with minimal searching the web . . . so do your homework if you don’t believe all the big guns are spending billions of dollars on geo-engineering right now under our noses and over our heads.


Satellite photo of an atmospheric geo-engineering project

While such a lineup of huge corporations and big names will inspire confidence among traders and high rollers on Wall Street as far as profits are concerned,  I have to ask a basic question — who among them has any expertise in ecology or the public trust? The answer is none of them. These are not the people for the job of geo-engineering. These are not the people we can trust the health of the planet and the future of the human species to. These are the people who have caused many of the problems we must overcome including the extinction of roughly 30% of all species in the last 500 years. Their combined history of political lobbying, special interest influence and cartel agreements warns us that they are exactly the wrong people for the job. We know also that if these people are heavily invested to the tune of billions of dollars in geo-engineering they will definitely continue their for-profit gamble with insane disregard for the lives of every living being upon the planet.


The Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy, led by Professor David Keith of Harvard University, is advocating a geo-engineering undertaking that combines nanotechnology with sulfuric aerosols. The idea is pump the nano-enhanced sulfuric aerosols into the Earth’s atmosphere to reflect sunlight back out into space, further enhancing the cooling effects of the sulfuric aerosols. Keith, along with Professor Ken Caldeira of Stanford, also manages the multi-million dollar geo-engineering research firm Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research, which is majority-funded by Bill Gates.


Atmospheric geo-engineering project over an urban area

Keith relevantly remarked that “You could manipulate the Earth’s climate at large scale for a cost that’s of the order of $1 billion a year. It sounds like a lot of money, but compared to the costs of managing other environmental problems or climate change, that is peanuts.” We know they are putting in more than a billion dollars a year now, and it is obvious that is funding a startup operation for the billion-a-year running costs once their ventures are established.

Jim M. Haywood, Andy Jones and Nicolas Bellouin from one of the the United Kingdoms foremost climate research centers, The Met Office Hadley Centre, and Professor David Stephenson of the University of Exeter, report in the journal Nature Climate Change that “geoengineering by continuous deliberate injection into the stratosphere”. . . of sulfuric aerosols . . .”concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere are a harbinger of Sahelian drought whereas those concentrated in the Southern Hemisphere induce a greening of the Sahel.” Once again I have to ask — can we trust these greedy bastards with the lives of so many?


The Thai inspired rain-making project used to alleviate drought in Queensland, Australia, may give a hint of consequences. They certainly did eliminate the drought the region was experiencing that brought the reservoirs down to about a quarter of their capacity, and replaced it with floods.


If that isn’t enough for you to realize geo-engineering is already here big-time and it is time to take action on this issue . . . there’s more.


Entrepreneur Russ George of Planktos Inc. advocates high-risk, large-scale geo-engineering  interventions that fundamentally change the composition of the ocean and atmosphere in order to reduce the effects of global climate disruption. He performed one such intervention off the coast of British Columbia. In July 2012 George and collaborators in the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation conducted an iron fertilization experiment. Iron fertilization is the intentional introduction of iron to the upper ocean to stimulate a phytoplankton bloom. George spread 100 tons of iron sulphate into an eddy 200 nautical miles west of the islands of Haida Gwaii (known to the colonizers as The Queen Charlotte Islands). George claims his iron fertilization resulted in increased algae growth over 10,000 square miles, and attracted a wide variety of marine life.


Why is iron fertilization as a factor in reducing the impact of global warming? In February 1988 oceanographer John Gribbin publicly suggested that the greenhouse effect could be reduced by the addition of large amounts of soluble iron compounds into the ocean. The iron acts as a fertilizer for aquatic plants. Aquatic plants consume carbon dioxide just as their terrestrial cousins do. Evidence for the global impact of aquatic plants and carbon dioxide reduction was demonstrated by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Andrew Watson, an environmental scientist, analyzed the global data from the Pinatubo eruption. He concluded that it caused 40,000 tons of iron dust to fertilize the ocean waters, caused a dramatic increase in phytoplankton and they generated the observed global decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide and the parallel increase in oxygen levels. Three years later oceanographer John Martin said “Give me a half a tanker of iron and I will give you another ice age”.

That all sounds promising, and easy but risky. What are the risks?

Algal blooms can be toxic and cause unintended consequences to the marine life in the region. Large scale blooms can cause red tides which result in powerful toxins being released that can kill fish, shellfish, mammals and birds, and can directly or indirectly cause illness or death in humans. Large scale algal blooms, even if not toxic, can deplete the oxygen in the water causing marine life to either leave the area or die. Even if the blooms can be controlled it has been demonstrated through repeated real world experiments that the sequestration of carbon dioxide is a short-lived phenomenon, and the vast majority of the carbon dioxide is quickly released again into the atmosphere when the plankton die off. Repeated blooms will also disrupt the pattern of life in the region, and beyond, and have unknown consequences. While this knowledge can be used for beneficial local and regional projects, the use of iron fertilization on a global scale to ameliorate the warming of the climate would have disastrous effects on all marine and coastal environments and eco-systems — which in turn has disastrous consequences for all terrestrial eco-systems. The ocean regulates the metabolism of the entire earth. Even if it is possible for global iron fertilization to cause an ice age, it would be a very short age. Nonetheless, it would be no joke — and a near-ice age won’t be fun either and will mean havoc for marine and terrestrial food harvests.

It is common knowledge, or would be if people weren’t sheeple, that the US military has been experimenting with geo-engineering the weather for over 60 years. A 1966 document from the NASA archives outlines the ongoing and expanding United States military weather modification programs at that time. The budgets of these programs were well funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars even then.

1996 research paper about the militarization of geo-engineering was prepared by Col. Tamzy J. House, Lt Col James B. Near, Jr., LTC William B. Shields (USA), Maj. Ronald J. Celentano, Maj. David M. Husband, Maj. Ann E. Mercer, and Maj. James E. Pugh for the chief of staff of the United States Air Force. The goal of the paper was to determine how the United States could remain the dominant air and space force. Their research starts out with the premise that “A global, precise, real-time, robust, systematic weather-modification capability would provide war-fighting CINCs with a powerful force multiplier to achieve military objectives. Since weather will be common to all possible futures, a weather-modification capability would be universally applicable and have utility across the entire spectrum of conflict.” The paper concludes “weather-modification is a force multiplier with tremendous power that could be exploited across the full spectrum of war-fighting environments. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counter-space control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary.”

The following links provide a few of the many documents that provide direct evidence that the military is not only interested in geo-engineering, but has been actively geo-engineering for quite some time without regard to our welfare.

Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis (2012)






Office of the Director of National Intelligence Climate and Geo-Engineering Document List

New York Times article on threat of climate change and the assessment by the United States military organizations

2007 NWV Geoengineering Alert An Uncomfortable Truth by R. Peterson July 1, 2007 Part II.pdf

2010 NWV Solar Radiation Management – Geoengineering February 18, 2010 by R. Peterson.pdf

2011 Task Force Members Report on Climate Remediation Report on Geoengineering OCT 4, 2011 Bipartisan Policy Center.pdf.pdf

2011 Task Force on Climate Remediation Releases Report+Press Release on Geoengineering OCT 4, 2011 Bipartisan Policy Center.pdf

2010 House of Commons Fifth Report-Session 2009-2010 The Regulation of Geoengineering-Complete Report March 10, 2010.pdf

2010 U.S. House of Representatives and UK Parliament House of Commons Joint Statement on Geoengineering 2010.pdf

2011 SRMGI-Royal Society+Environmental Defense Fund Global Geoengineering Governance.pdf

2011 U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy+Environment Website July 26, 2011.pdf

It is obvious that the political, corporate and military spheres are heavily invested in geo-engineering. Why aren’t you?


Please donate to the Occupy Bus Tour so we can continue to bring the message that another world is possible. Thank you.

This is the last post on this blog because we have no more free storage space. We are continuing this journey on the Occupy Bus Tour (Blog 2) site. See you there!

As a gift to everyone, Ed, the BlackHeart Street Medic, has made Crow Feathers, his book of poetry, available for free download in .pdf format. If you like his street medic work, or you like his poetry, or maybe you just like him, then please consider donating to keep Ed going as a full-time activist, street medic, independent journalist, street librarian and hard-ground Occupier.

Download Crow Feathers, Ed’s book of poetry, free at: