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.

>>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.