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.

>>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.