Scientific Publishing, Paywalls, etc...

Basically, a paper publishing company is a fat jew (most publishing is owned by the Jews), who somehow got the right to decide what is important for goyim. And, of course, such publisher can ban research based on religious, political or ethnic reason ("you're a goy-antisemite and we hate you").

For example, Bertelsmann (owner of Springer Verlag):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertelsmann
Hartmut Ostrowski, Chairman & CEO
OstrowsKI? KIke.

Dr. Thomas Rabe, Chief Financial Officer
Rabe? Rabbi.

Bertelsmann is not publicly listed and is majority owned (77.4%) by the Bertelsmann Foundation, a non-profit organisation and political think tank set up by the Mohn family
Jewish family. Like Rothschilds.

Dr. Thomas Rabe, Chief Financial Officer
Rabe? Rabbi.
"Rabe" means "Raven" in German. Last I heard, hardly the "purest" creature the Jewish scriptures could possibly imagine. And so not fit for a Jewish name. Just saying.

>>2
"Rabe" means "Raven" in German.
Jews sometimes take cool "animal" names, like Leo or Wolf. Raven often portrayed as a wise creature and it's one of the few speaking animals. So a Rabe sounds like a cool surname for a Rabbi.

Last I heard, hardly the "purest" creature the Jewish scriptures could possibly imagine. And so not fit for a Jewish name. Just saying.
In the Book of Kings 17:4-6, God commands the ravens to feed the prophet Elijah. The Job ponders who feeds the ravens in Job 38:41. King Solomon is described as having hair as black as a raven in the Song of Songs 5:11. In the New Testament as well, ravens are used by Jesus as an illustration of God's provision in Luke 12:24.

>>3
Jews sometimes take cool "animal" names, like Leo or Wolf
Then, by your …logic, what names are there left for us goyim to take?

More importantly: why the goddamn, cock-sucking motherFUCK do you want to give all the good names to the Jews? Can't we goyim keep ANYTHING?

>>4
We, goyim, should be humble, we don't need these vivid, poseur names. Our actions must speak for us, not our names.

Вильгельм, Гийом, Уильям, Зигфрид…
That kind of humble names?

>>5
>Our actions must speak for us, not our names.
So names are unimportant and we should judge individuals based on what they actually do? Well, I'm glad we're making progress.

Paywalls are fucking stupid, especially for news publications. You can't have a functioning democracy if you force people to pay to get their news.

>>8
Why sage a post that finally takes the thread in a sane direction?

News sites will of course need some way to make some sort of profit, at least enough to keep going. Not to mention pay its reporters; they too need food on their table.

And especially those that strive to support good background info on things that happen. Why they happen, how world history started more than five seconds ago, etc.
In short, articles that don't just dumb down the story, or the people.

The _good_ news sites tend to cost money to run. Just like radio and TV stations. And ad revenue may not always be sufficient. Donations can work, but that comes off as too unstable.

That said, there's indeed things to be said against paywalling. I just don't see (right off the top of my head) any other way that can really be trusted to actually work in the long run.

>>9
Why sage a post that finally takes the thread in a sane direction?
The inertia of habit, I suppose. I sometimes think a good idea (at least maybe in the United States) is where you can have government (state, Federal, whatever) subsidize part of the costs of a publication, then leave the rest to paid subscriptions, advertisements, donations, etc.

That of course presents a problem when said publication publishes what a whistle-blower exposes in a government department, plus it helps if your government doesn't get involved in massive corruption.
Donations can work, but that comes off as too unstable.
I wouldn't write-off donations right off the bat. Charities and foundations have lasted a very long time, and at some of them even have paid full-time staff. You'd be surprised at the amount of people willing to part ways with their money if they think it's going to a very well-run organization. I'd hate to mention Assange's pet project, but after all the blackout attempts, even WikiLeaks is still afloat.

>>10
Israel exists almost completely on donations.

>>11
It's military budget is 6% of GDP, quite high but not impossible for it to fund itself without foreign aid.

>>11
With all the lobbyists in the US, I don't really see how this is the informed, consenting will of the people there.

>>10
I'm not writing donations off (completely), I just don't think it's a good idea to rely too completely on just one source of income.

you can have government (state, Federal, whatever) subsidize part of the costs of a publication

Norway has had some sort of this for a while, at least for paper publications. Not sure about the net publications, though.