Ebrius Disputatios

More Egregious Disinformation Regarding Iran by Larry Johnson of Sonar 21

One of Iran’s Underground Missile Cities.

Sy Hersh is out with a sad new article — Inside Trump and Netanyahu’s Meeting on Iran — that contains three ridiculous, nonsensical paragraphs, which were fed to him by one of his sources. This is an article that Sy never would have written in his prime because he would have tried to corroborate the outlandish assertions. Here are the paragraphs:

Another threat not mentioned between Trump and Netanyahu is Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal. It was one of the major targets of the US-Israeli bombing attack last June. It was wiped out last year but is currently being rebuilt at a rapid rate.

During the war last summer Iran’s missiles had less than a ten percent chance of getting through Israel’s Iron Dome and other air defenses. Iran was able to fire off about 550 missiles at Israeli targets during the war, but the forty-five that got through, even with minimal payloads, caused enormous damage in Tel Aviv and terrified the population. Israel has watched since then as Iran concentrated on manufacturing more and larger missiles

I was told that the upgraded missiles now being manufactured at plants throughout Iran will have enough range to hit targets in Southeastern Europe, where there are little or no air defenses.

Where do I begin? I don’t know if Sy’s source was an Israeli or someone from the US intelligence community, but the info he or she fed Sy is not accurate. Which leads to the next question… Did the source really believe the information was true or was the source using Sy to salt social media with propaganda?

Let’s start with the first claim, i.e., the Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal was wiped out last June. Iran stopped firing missiles at Iran on June 24 because of a deal negotiated with the US to end the war… Not because Iran had run out of missiles. Iran’s ballistic missiles are stored in massive secure underground caves. We have seen no credible evidence that Israel or the US destroyed any of those facilities. Remember all of the predictions about Russia’s missile capability in the Spring and Summer of 2022? We were repeatedly informed that Russia was running out of missiles and that their inventory would soon be exhausted. I think we are seeing a repeat of this delusion with respect to Iran.

The next whopper fed to Sy is that Iran fired 550 missiles but only 45, i.e., 8%, got through and hit a target. That claim comes from the Israeli Defense Forces. Would they have any reason to lie? (That is a sarcastic question.) Let me repeat the list of documented damages from the missiles that Iran launched last June, which I wrote about last week:

Hundreds of buildings in major cities such as Tel Aviv suburbs (Bat Yam, Ramat Gan) were damaged — with some buildings so badly hit they were later demolished. In Tel Aviv alone, analysts mapped damage to around 480 buildings across multiple strike sites.

Iranian missiles damaged key public facilities, such as theSoroka Medical Center in Be’er Sheva, which was hit by an Iranian missile, causing structural damage and chemical leaks; the affected wing was evacuated. Power and water infrastructure also were hit, contributing to service disruptions.

Iran’s ballistic strikes hit high-value facilities as well. The Weizmann Institute of Science (a major research institution in Rehovot) was severely damaged — with an estimated 90% of structures affected, destruction of dozens of labs, and suspension of about 25% of its operations.

Independent radar data and reporting showed that Iranian missiles directly hit around five Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) facilities, including an air base, intelligence center, and logistics base. Israeli authorities did not publicly confirm these hits at the time, due to military censorship. Israeli oil refining infrastructure — especially in Haifa Bay — also suffered direct hits and damage from Iranian missiles, including to critical units and pipelines at the Bazan refinery and associated casualties. The strike on the Bazan oil refinery complex in Haifa Bay, one of Israel’s most important energy facilities, heavily damaged the power generation unit and other infrastructure critical for operation.

Gee, if Iran can do that much damage with just 45 missiles after getting hit with a surprise attack, imagine what they can do with advance warning and preparation. Theodore Postol, an MIT professor emeritus and longtime critic of missile defense systems (known for debunking exaggerated claims about Patriot missiles during the 1991 Gulf War) has looked at the data from June 2025 and concluded that the interception rates were far lower than officially reported, estimating only about 5% success against ballistic missiles specifically—meaning roughly 95% penetrated defenses. I find Ted far more credible. Too bad Sy didn’t ask him (and Sy knows Ted).

The last problematic paragraph in Sy’s article is the claim that Iran will have enough long-range missile to hit targets in Southeastern Europe. And why would Iran attack Europe? This ridiculous claim is a repeat of previous CIA propaganda that was intended to ignite fear in Europe in order to convince the Europeans into going along with an attack on Iran. Iran is not going to waste missiles on Italy, Greece, Bosnia, or Serbia… It will use them on Israel.

If Trump, despite warnings from JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard, chooses to launch an unprovoked war against Iran, I would not be surprised if Iran decides to launch its retaliatory strike before the US bombs and missiles hit targets in Iran. I am not talking about a preemptive strike, rather I am assuming that Russia and China will alert Iran when US attack aircraft take off on their first mission and that Iran will in turn fire off its first salvo of drones and missiles while the US planes and cruise missiles are headed towards targets in Iran. If this goes hot we will be staring into the gaping yaw of a major regional war and the US may suffer more casualties then it incurred in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. So much for Donald Trump’s promise to not get America into a needless foreign war.

I had the privilege of chatting about Iran and the war in Ukraine on Wednesday with my good friend, George Galloway:

See More On Sonar 21

Roberto Salas, Photographer Who Portrayed, Among Other Things, The Epic Cuban Revolution.

When you enter Roberto Salas Merino's house, you are dazzled by the quantity – and quality – of the photographs that occupy each wall. Fragments of his series: Nudes (1994-2004), Así son los Cubanos (2007-2015), Nostalgias (2009-2019)… But also, of course, a space reserved for his most beloved images: those that portray the revolutionary epic.

There is The Lady and the Flag (1957), that photo where a July 26 flag flies on the Statue of Liberty. And January, 1959, where Fidel and Che share a moment that he himself considers his masterpiece.

How many snapshots have you taken in your entire life? Salitas – as his colleagues call him – laughs when thinking about the amount. And so he receives Granma in the living room of his home, which summarizes six decades of work, as a result of recently being awarded the 2025 National Prize for Plastic Arts.

AN INHERITED PASSION

Photography came to him by inheritance and by destiny. His father, Osvaldo Salas (1914-1992), was one of the great names of Cuban epic photography, along with Alberto Korda, Raúl Corrales, Ernesto Fernández and Liborio Noval. He had emigrated to the United States in 1926, looking for better horizons, and there, in New York, Roberto was born in 1940.

At that time, Osvaldo became involved in the visual arts and, between 1950 and 1958, he consolidated his prestige as a photographer, opening his own studio in front of Madison Square Garden, one of the most important sports and entertainment complexes in the city.

It could be said, then, that we are talking about an inherited passion: «It was in steps. I was in high school but I had to help him in his business: photos for weddings, baptisms, birthdays... I grew up among chemicals, developing and printing images.

At just 16 years old, a photograph of him would become the most important of the revolutionary movement taken outside of Cuba. It was The Lady and the Flag: «That day my partners climbed to the crown of the statue and placed the flag. I managed to capture the image and they picked it up quickly. I think I was tremendously lucky –he says–, you know how the press is: sometimes there are dead days, without important news. Thus it was published in four of the seven newspapers in the city and in agencies throughout the country. Even Life magazine published it!

Days later, some Puerto Ricans tried to repeat the feat with their own flag, but found the windows sealed. “Apparently I had something to do with it,” he smiles.

PHOTOGRAPHER AND FRIEND OF FIDEL

In 1955, Fidel Castro came to New York to raise funds for the struggle. He needed to reproduce images of Batista's crimes and came to the Salas studio. The job cost ten dollars, but when Salitas took him, Fidel had no money.

«I remember we were in a kitchen. He and other fighters counted the money raised for the cause. And to me, at 15 years old, it occurs to me to say: “How are you going to tell me that you don't have money, with everything that's on the table?” It was the first time I heard a speech: “That money is sacred, it is for the struggle..., I can't touch it, it doesn't belong to me.”

«That didn't stop there. In 1961, after an event in Matanzas, a former guerrilla approached Fidel to ask for a job. He finally got it, but he also took the opportunity to ask for money.

«Fidel approached us, to see if we could lend him something. Like everyone else, I put my hands in my pocket, but he stopped me and said, “Not you, I still owe you ten dollars.” End of story, I'm still waiting for my money.

That incident, which began in New York, was the seed of a lasting friendship. On January 2, 1959, Salitas took the opportunity to travel to Cuba and document the revolutionary epic. Then he coincided with Fidel, when he returned in the Freedom Caravan. Since then, Osvaldo became the head of the Photography Department at the Revolución newspaper and Roberto was one of his personal photographers.

His favorite photograph dates from that time: January, 1959. «For the first time I saw Che. I was sitting with Fidel in the Presidential Palace. The lighting was very poor; I had to use the match when they lit a cigar, but since it was of poor quality, they did it several times. Forget everything else – he points to the image next to him – that's the best thing I've ever done. “It was very easy to work with Fidel, he always respected our work.”

GRANMA, VIETNAM, AND ITS ONLY PHOBIA

Salitas is considered the founder of the Granma newspaper, established after the merger of Revolución and Hoy. He collaborated for years with the Photography Department, and even published some texts. But he never received a fixed salary: “I preferred it that way. “I had the door half open to decide what things were best for me.”

His wife, Lourdes Socarrás, intervenes in the conversation to specify dates and tell anecdotes. It was she who remembered how Roberto asked Celia Sánchez for permission to travel to Vietnam, where he worked between 1966 and 1973.

He treasures memorable events from that country, such as being among the few Cubans who shared with Ho Chi Minh, whom he remembers as a very simple and humble man. Other, sadder moments taught him that war does not distinguish between people.

«On the border, underground, lived a little girl named Mai. He became attached to me in a few days because his father had died. When I returned to Hanoi, I sent a doll to a colleague who was going there. Two weeks later, he came to see me and, without saying a word, returned the doll to me. To this day it saddens me.”

As a war correspondent, he faced many fears. But Lourdes reveals that her only real phobia is of closed spaces, originating in an experience in the Matahambre Mines, which she photographed for Granma in 1968. “I spent a good time there, not only underground, where copper was extracted, but also on the surface, capturing how the miners lived.”

When revisiting the press in those first years of the Revolution, the preponderance of images over text, almost non-existent, is evident: “A large part of the population was illiterate, so the writings were brief, the expressive power of photographs was prioritized, there was no better way to communicate.”

In subsequent years, in addition to the photographic series mentioned at the beginning, others such as Yagrumas, Tabaco, Epigramas, and an essay on the last departure of the Cabildo de Regla stand out. At the same time, he has held various exhibitions and his books have been published both in Cuba and abroad.

A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE

«Photography is a way of speaking, of reaching people you don't know or don't know how to read. The images are universal. This is how he thinks about the usefulness of this art and considers that “the most important thing is that the award pays tribute to the entire union, not to me. I may be a fashionable author, pure coincidence, but it should have been given long before to colleagues who also deserved it.

Regarding Cuba, he assures that here he found what he did not have in New York: a home. «My father was always very Cuban and wanted to return. Americans are shit, the immigrant will always be an immigrant. Thanks to this Island I was able to become a photographer.

Today, at 85 years old – almost four years without taking new photos – he reads, writes and cooks from time to time. Nor does he conceive of other projects: «I could have done some things better, but that doesn't worry me now. I am satisfied with everything I did. At least I'm leaving something for tomorrow. “That's what's important.”

And as he finishes, his gaze scans the walls full of images, perhaps few that fail to do enough justice to so many years of work, but that reveal pieces of stories that he, with his camera, gave us forever.

This month China launched its new Mengzhou manned spacecraft for a max-Q abort test (the capsule escapes from the rocket at maximum speed/pressure in the atmosphere).

Not only was the abort test & sea landing successful, the Long March 10 rocket that carried it continued downrange for a soft propulsion landing in the sea, next to a recovery ship designed to eventually catch it.

Mengzhou will enable manned missions to the moon as well as ferrying personnel to and from China's space station in low earth orbit.

While upset Westerners are claiming this is a “copy” of SpaceX's Falcon 9 – because both are superficially shaped like a cylinder and perform similar flight maneuvers – Long March 10 has no technical resemblance to the Falcon 9.

It is a completely different type of rocket engine with completely different functions, specifications, & requirements.

I saw one argument that China “stole” the grid fins featured on the Long March 10 booster – as if SpaceX invented grid fins long used on Soviet rockets & missiles since the Cold War!

It would be like claiming Toyota copied Chevy because both make cars with 4 wheels, engines, & drive down the road.

China is rapidly catching up to the US in the very small and shrinking fields of expertise the US still holds advantages in – space launch technology being one of them – and eventually/inevitably – China will far surpass the US.

And many in the West are not taking this with grace, humility, or a desire for constructive competition, cooperation, or coexistence – all to their own detriment.

(IMAGES: The initial launch before the abort test, the soft landing of the Long March 10 booster, the Mengzhou spacecraft being recovered after splashdown).

There are moments when history is reduced to a single, inevitable contrast. Today is one of them. In the face of renewed threats and economic aggression emanating from Washington under Donald Trump, an old truth is gaining strength:

Cuba sends doctors. The United States sends bombs.

This is not a slogan invented for effect. It is the reflection of two opposing social systems , two different priorities, two irreconcilable visions of what a society should produce and for whom.

For more than sixty years, socialist Cuba has lived under a blockade, sanctions, financial isolation and constant political hostility from the United States. The objective of said pressure has never been hidden. From the first days after 1959, Washington's strategy aimed at economic asphyxiation : restricting trade, hindering access to credit, generating shortages and forcing the population to rebel against its own revolutionary project.

It didn't work.

Instead of collapsing, the island reorganized itself. Instead of militarizing his society, he invested in education and public health . When much of the pre-revolutionary medical elite left the country anticipating the fall of the Revolution, Cuba made a historic decision: it would train a new generation of doctors among the workers and peasants. Health care would not depend on wealth. It would be universal, preventive and public .

Under Fidel Castro's leadership, scarce resources went not to stock exchanges or private insurance conglomerates, but to polyclinics, vaccination programs, and medical schools . In a poor and beleaguered country, the Revolution chose to multiply the number of doctors .

That decision transformed Cuba internally. Life expectancy increased. Infant mortality fell to levels comparable to those in developed countries. Entire rural areas, abandoned under the old regime, received constant medical care for the first time. Health stopped being a commodity and became a social guarantee .

But Cuba did not stop at its own borders.

Time and time again, when disaster struck other places, Cuban medical brigades were present. After earthquakes in Latin America, hurricanes in the Caribbean, epidemics in Africa and pandemics that paralyzed rich countries, Cuban doctors boarded planes not with weapons, but with stethoscopes. Amid the devastation of Ebola in West Africa, it was Cuban medical personnel who arrived in significant numbers when many powerful countries hesitated. During the COVID-19 crisis, Cuban brigades supported overwhelmed health systems abroad, while the island simultaneously developed its own vaccines despite the blockade.

This is not charity diplomacy . It is derived from a different organizing principle . A planned economy, even one with limited material wealth, can prioritize the defense of life because it is not governed by private profit .

Now look at the other side of the contrast.

The United States has the largest military budget in history . Its defense spending exceeds that of entire regions combined. It maintains hundreds of bases abroad and has participated, directly or indirectly, in wars, invasions, regime change operations, sanctions campaigns and covert interventions on every continent. From Southeast Asia to the Middle East, from Latin America to Eastern Europe, its foreign policy has consistently relied on military influence and economic coercion .

At home, millions of Americans struggle with medical debt. Entire communities face inadequate access to health care. Vital medications can have unaffordable prices. However, there is no comparable hesitation to fund new weapons systems, expand military alliances, or modernize nuclear arsenals.

This contrast has nothing to do with national character. It has to do with the structure .

Capitalism, in its imperial stage, concentrates wealth, protects corporate power and projects military force to secure its economic interests. Socialist construction —although limited by enormous external pressure—attempts to allocate resources according to collective needs .

For more than six decades, the US blockade has attempted to make daily life in Cuba unbearable. It restricts access to medical equipment, fuel, spare parts, financial transactions and international trade. It punishes third countries that try to normalize economic relations with the island. Each shortage is cynically cited as proof of the “failure” of socialism, while external strangulation is made invisible.

And yet, despite all this, Cuba continues to graduate doctors in notable numbers. Continue sending medical brigades abroad. He continues to view health care not as a luxury, but as a right .

That reality is politically dangerous .

Washington is not concerned about Cuban strength, but rather its example . A small Caribbean nation, ninety miles from Florida, demonstrating that education can be free, that health care can be universal, that solidarity can cross borders without corporate contracts, constitutes a silent but persistent rebuke to the dominant model.

The difference can be expressed simply:

One system invests in aircraft carriers ; the other invests in pediatricians .

A system refines sanctions ; the other refines vaccination campaigns .

A system speaks of “freedom” while tightening the economic siege ; the other sends medical teams to communities that cannot pay.

Cuba is not a utopia . No society under permanent external pressure can be free from contradictions or difficulties. But his priorities are unequivocal. In the face of scarcity, choose to educate. In the face of crisis, choose to heal . In the face of economic attacks, it responds by training more doctors.

That moral orientation matters.

Cuba, a small island just ninety miles from Florida, continues to demonstrate that another world is possible , not with statements or speeches, but with doctors, classrooms and solidarity. And that living example is what the empire will never forgive.

#Cuba #UnitedStates

by Alberto García February 10, 2026 – Minimal historical analysis shows us that the United States never intended to protect Europeans, much less freedoms and democracy, or the well-being of the peoples of the world, but exclusively to pursue policies that served its imperial interests and, by extension, the capitalist system as a whole.

Every time a media outlet, whether progressive or reactionary, analyzes the current situation in Europe, its loss of international influence, its supposed weakness, what we call its powerlessness in the face of hypothetical threats, we invariably put forward the same reasoning: all this is due to the fact that the United States once protected us, and that since the sinister Trump came to power, this country has ceased to provide this essential protection, leaving us alone in the face of dangers. From this constantly repeated principle, everyone draws the analysis that suits them and formulates their opinions, according to their own ideological prejudices.

The intention is therefore to present historically the United States as the leaders of the so-called free world, generous, powdered milk-distributing, champions of freedom and democracy, and to show that they have currently ceased to play this role following a historical accident, the coming to power of an individual sometimes described as crazy, eccentric, and that once the electoral will of American citizens is changed, they will once again have a beneficial role for the whole world, confronting the forces of evil and helping all countries to be free and happy.

Since they have ceased to “protect” us, we must strengthen our defense systems by acquiring a considerable amount of armaments from this historically reliable protector who, although currently somewhat misguided, will soon return to the right path, using NATO for the common benefit of its members, and we can then resume our activities as if nothing had happened. Proposals from such serious analysts as General Ayala – that to truly create a European defense system, the different military instruments of each EEC country should first be integrated, their structures harmonized and armaments acquired primarily within the European Union, not outside – have not been taken seriously.

But even minimal historical analysis shows us that the United States never intended to protect Europeans, much less the freedoms and democracy, or the well-being of the peoples of the world, but exclusively to pursue policies that served its imperial interests, and by extension the capitalist system as a whole.

We recall today that Trump openly invokes the Monroe Doctrine, stated in 1823 by President James Monroe, according to which America belonged to the Americans . It quickly became apparent that this doctrine actually applied to North Americans, but this principle has been defended by all American presidents throughout the history of the country (Democrats or Republicans), and has been strengthened over time. Initially focused on the control of the entire American continent, this doctrine extended to the entire world after the First World War, and especially after the Second, its position of force allowing it.

The war against Spain in 1898 was not intended to liberate Americans of Cuban origin, nor the Filipinos of Asia, but to ensure the colonial domination of the two countries, to cite only two examples that concern us directly.

The United States currently has approximately 800 overseas military bases. This represents 90% of all military bases owned by a country outside their borders.

It was during the interwar period that the United States took over from the United Kingdom of Great Britain as the leading imperialist power, and from then on the creation of military bases across the world became the foundation of this imperial policy.

On September 2, 1940, the United States and England signed the agreement known as “destroyers for bases,” under which the United States Navy transferred 50 destroyers to the British Navy in exchange for a lease on base facilities in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Bermuda, and various points in the Caribbean on what were British bases in the Western Hemisphere.

Beginning in 1945, the establishment of such outposts became widespread throughout the world. We refer to the reference study on the subject, the work of American professor David Vine entitled “Base Nation” (How American military bases abroad harm America and the world), which led to the creation of a detailed database on the location and characteristics of these bases, used even by the Pentagon in some of its official publications.

After the Second World War, as mentioned previously, and from the relaunch of the Cold War and its prologue, namely the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the objective of which was not only to subdue the Japanese forces, but also to draw the world's attention to the consequences that those who would subsequently challenge American hegemony could suffer, the different continents were dotted with such bases: in Asia (Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Guam), the Middle East (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Syria and Turkey), among others, and Europe (Germany, Italy, Hungary, Greece, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, among others).

Regarding Europe, the justification for such an extraordinary military presence was presented as a defense mechanism for Europe against the USSR, but this state never attacked any country in this part of the world after the Second World War, scrupulously respecting the division into zones of influence established between England, the United States and the USSR itself in the Yalta agreements. In Greece and elsewhere in Europe, the agreements were maintained despite the existence of considerable popular forces which attempted to modify the status determined by this pact.

NATO was another of the great mechanisms used by the United States to support its imperial expansion, and this was not contained after the demise of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR; on the contrary, it expanded ever further east, moving closer to Russia, despite promises to Gorbachev that it would not move an inch in that direction.

The maintenance of these bases in Europe has never been motivated by the defense of Europeans; no real threat has ever justified their presence on this part of the continent. After the disappearance of the pretext invoked for their maintenance – the Soviet threat and the Warsaw Pact – far from being abandoned, these measures were reinforced in order to preserve the hegemony of capitalism in Western Europe and to increase pressure on Russia. This situation persisted until recently, when the United States gradually changed its geostrategic analysis, now designating China as its main enemy. Imperial interest and attention then shifted in this direction, and the military presence on the European continent became a less and less important concern for the Americans. This development seems to have been discovered with fear by the leaders of the EEC countries, subjects of American interests, who found themselves with the presidency of Donald Trump, who no longer hides his concern about the defense of European citizens against alleged threats, the main one of which is undoubtedly their quasi-colonial dependence on the United States.

Most European leaders preferred Bush, who justified the invasion of Iraq by alluding to the existence in that country of weapons of mass destruction whose presence made it possible to deceive European citizens, rather than Trump, who attacks Venezuela by confirming that he is only doing it to seize its oil.

In summary, the leaders of this imperialist country never intended to protect the freedoms, rights or well-being of European citizens, and they did not maintain their bases on European territory for these purposes, but to preserve their hegemony and perpetuate capitalism. Previously, they held up the specter of communism as the threat justifying their presence, a threat which, to mask their constant aggression, was hidden under sophisticated artifices extolling the merits and advantages of being associated with this country – the land of Hollywood, household appliances, modern music and so many other mechanisms of so-called “soft power”, making their hegemony more bearable. However, with the upheavals in the world over the past thirty years, these artifices have collapsed, exposing the true face of American imperialism.

Welcome to the debates that animate European countries whose citizens are becoming aware of the main threat they face, but stop telling us that our “protector” has abandoned us.

Faced with new threats from the US to Cuba, the head of Russian diplomacy has stressed that all issues must be resolved through a dialogue based on mutual respect and aimed at finding a balance of interests. He highlighted: “We know that our Cuban friends are always willing to engage in these honest negotiations.”

He has also expressed: “For our part, we will continue to consistently provide our support to Cuba and the Cuban people in the defense of the country's sovereignty and security.”

At the same time, Lavrov has “categorically rejected the unfounded accusations” against the cooperation of Russia and Cuba, “as if it supposedly created a threat to the interests of the US or any other country.”

Lavrov has also denounced that, after several decades of blockade of Cuba by the US, Washington currently “threatens to toughen its illegitimate and inhuman actions” against the Caribbean country.

“Together with most members of the international community, we urge the US to demonstrate common sense and a responsible approach, and refrain from its plans to impose a naval military blockade on Cuba.”

In conclusion, the Foreign Minister has once again made clear the “total solidarity” of the Government of Russia with the Government of Cuba, adding that he “fully shares the assessments” of Bruno Rodríguez that the ties between both nations are “historical, fraternal, special and strategic.”

I compiled and built the new, Linux kernel 6.19.0, on a dedicated Raspberry Pi, which was delegated for the job, to use on other Raspberry Pis, using these instructions. and it took a little over one hour. The last kernel, tested was kernel 6.18.9, which was stable but it seemed to use much more memory and seemed much more CPU intensive than the, now latest kernel in the Raspberry Pi OS, repository, which at the time of this article, is currently kernel 6.12.62.

Building kernels for some people, is considered fun, however, what must be admitted is that in this matter, leaping without looking was our initial method here, since we haven't yet familiarized ourselves with the potential kernel benchmark tools to make any real scientific declarations on our findings.

This should have been obvious to us at the onset, but as stated, we jumped before leaping. Therefore, much of our declarations here, will be akin to opinions based on emotions rather than scientific methods. We'll work on becoming proficient with Linux kernel benchmark software so that we can become better at the scientific method.

That being said, this kernel 6.19.0, seems to be stingy with memory and CPU resources. It's early yet, but I think I like it a lot. I won't getting too attached however, since this version, the 6.19.y, will not be a long term support kernel but I couldn't resist testing it out.

Now I followed the instructions, almost to the letter, but I skipped a few steps. Namely, I didn't bother to copy over the dtbs, which for those who don't know are the device tree binaries, nor the overlays either. I took the chance that the old ones, installed with the kernel 6.12.y, would work. I didn't want to unnecessarily complicate the test or confuse myself when the time came to revert to the officially supported kernel version in the Raspberry Pi's repository.

I also didn't overwrite my old kernel with the new one either. I just named the new kernel mycustomkernel.img or something like it and made an edit in the config.txt file, located in the boot, firmware directory and that worked well. While I may have omitted the steps I mentioned, I did include one step not in the official instructions, of make -j6 Image.gz modules dtbs, by adding bindeb-pkg to the list. Which included three Debian, deb archive files, of which I extracted the modules, and headers from.

I didn't install the deb packages since that could, provide another layer of complexity. It is just easier to extract the archives using the GNU ar tool, then tar and place the modules and their respective directories. That way, when one has finished playing and testing, one can just remove them with little or no side effects.

Kernel 6.19.0 runs well on the Raspberry Pi. Everything seems to be working correctly. Video is working, audio WiFi, Bluetooth and so far as one can see, the transition has been seamless. As stated earlier, no real scientific bench marking has been done since we were premature in our testing and mainly motivated by enthusiasm. We will do better in that department in the future and preface to say that our findings are purely based on user experience and emotion.

Criticizing big agriculture, including big sugar and big junk food could get you sued