Is the link to Reduxx telling the truth about Dr. Alaric Naudé?

He does know Prostasia has made numerous statemets that say “We don’t support adult-child sex in any form whatsoever” right? I mean does he mention that in his study at all?


He got his defamatory paper re-published in The Public Insight?

I have a hard time taking this seriously, honestly. This…individual is so wrong on so many levels, it makes perfect sense as to why he’s confined to the back-alley, bare-minimum, ‘bargain-bin’ area of social sciences, and I’m thankful that Naude will never be regarded as a credible voice in the academic arena. He has offered nothing of value, and his words alone demonstrate incredulity.

Prostasia has dealt with this type of defamatory rhetoric before.


That grifter Shoe0nHead…


Funny you should mention her…

I am very normal and can be trusted with a large platform

Seems legit


Thing is: from his perspective, he does.

Saying things like “we should see people as people” sounds great at first, until you realize that it always gives you the option to exclude arbitrary groups by defining them as not people. And that’s what he does. He does not see us as people or as human beings. Even more so, he sees us as fundamentally dangerous and a threat to “legitimate” people. That means that stigmatizing and insulting us, discriminating against us and even calling for us to be tortured and killed does, from his point of view, not only not contradict supposedly humane and inclusive views, they even require it – by protecting “legitimate” human beings from those monsters who would endanger them.

It’s always the same pattern that you can find throughout history. First of all, you have to dehumanize those you want to discriminate against. Then you can vote for every thinkable atrocity against that group to be committed and still think of yourself as kind, empathetic and compassionate.

And of course, when people did that in the past (like Nazis, slave traders or homophobes) they were horribly wrong, but this time you definitely got it right – because after all the people you discriminate against really are inhuman monsters, and how dare you even compare that to the awful struggles of human beings who actually deserve compassion?

There is a great quote by Neil Gaimann describing this process:

Look—here is a good man, good by his own lights and the lights of his friends: he is faithful and true to his wife, he adores and lavishes attention on his little children, he cares about his country, he does his job punctiliously, as best he can. So, efficiently and good-naturedly, he exterminates Jews: he appreciates the music that plays in the background to pacify them; he advises the Jews not to forget their identification numbers as they go into the showers—many people, he tells them, forget their numbers, and take the wrong clothes, when they come out of the showers. This calms the Jews: there will be life, they assure themselves, after the showers. And they are wrong. Our man supervises the detail taking the bodies to the ovens; and if there is anything he feels bad about, it is that he still allows the gassing of vermin to affect him. Were he a truly good man, he knows, he would feel nothing but joy, as the earth is cleansed of its pests.
Leave him; he cuts too deep. He is too close to us and it hurts.


Hit the nail on the head. As for myself, it doesn’t matter how much we hate somebody or how dangerous they are: we have no right whatsoever to dehumanize them. Even when they truly do arguably “deserve it”.

6ix9ine, Albert Fish, Andrei Chikatilo, Danny Heinrich, David Berg, Fred West, Gary Glitter, Ian Brady, Jared Fogle, Jeffrey Dahmer, Jeffrey Epstein, Jimmy Savile, John Wayne Gacy, Joseph McCann, Joseph Stalin (he impregnated a 14yo at age 35), Larry Nassar, Leonard Lake, Luis Garavito, Matthew Falder, Mr Cruel, Ottis Toole, Pedro López, Peter Scully, R. Kelly, Richard Ramirez, Rodney Alcala, Roman Polanski, Rose West, Roy Whiting, Ted Bundy, Tsutomu Miyazaki, Victor Salva, William Bonin, etc.

All of these people are the absolute worst: rapists, murderers, etc. But they aren’t monsters separate from the rest of us: they too are homo sapiens, human to a fault. Greed, hate, violence. Under the correct circumstances, anyone could wind up like them. All the German soldiers who committed the Holocaust were normal people indoctrinated into seeing others as “less human”; the Americans who owned slaves and whipped them were merely products of their time, a time that viewed their human stock as “farm equipment” rather than people, etc.

We LOVE to say such “monsters” no longer count as people, but I’d instead argue they represent part of precisely what it means to be human, to be tribal and selfish. They just take it WAY too far and commit atrocities that the uninitiated couldn’t fathom, let alone stomach. Ah well, watch my words be taken out of context to make it seem like I’m justifying such behavior. Reality is that I’d rather we rise above any petty emotions of jealousy and vengeance to become something better. Sadly, I don’t see this happening anytime soon…

And for anybody thinking we should be “soft” on legitimate predators: no, they did wrong and must be held accountable for the crimes committed. But shit like the woodchipper meme is fucking unacceptable. Make no mistake, I’m far from a pacifist; violence is sometimes justified, but only when absolutely necessary (like in self-defense or when fighting a war) and it should never be more than what is required: if somebody must die, kill them quickly and humanely. Torture (like the woodchipper) is for savages. Even then, I’d prefer we not kill people at all. Still doesn’t mean just letting criminals go, y’know? Prevention and rehabilitation first, life imprisonment as a last resort, to Hell with the death penalty.


Is it true you are working on a rebuttal?

I took a break from it, but I may resume it once I have time. Naude comes across as very ineffective, if not incompetent when it comes to their criticisms.

The fact that the only journal to publish his defamatory piece is one that’s very new and with very little to no peer review or oversight shows how much credibility he has.
Naude is a linguistics professor, and a very opinionated and biased one, at that. I suppose it wouldn’t hurt to try and deplatform him, but I’m not sure how the university he works for will engage with this, nor am I all that familiar with SoKo academics in particular.

@terminus I would like to know your thoughts on the matter, if you have the time?


FWIW, I found some links that might be helpful with that:

A brief biographical of Dr. Alaric Naudé: Alaric Naudé - Global Listening Centre

His work places emphasis on “the right kind of listening” which refers to non-extremist, non-radical or non-biased sources.

Yeah, I bet.

Another short biographical of the professor can be found here: Alaric Naudé | KoreaTESOL

Yet another biographical of the professor can be found here: Alaric Naudé - EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki

Dr. Naudé is briefly mentioned on this Wikipedia page: Naude - Wikipedia

The Wikipedia page of the University of Suwon: University of Suwon - Wikipedia

The official site of the University of Suwon: 수원대학교 > The university of suwon

The official site of the Suwon Science College (where Dr. Naudé works): SOWON SCIENCE COLLEGE (

I couldn’t find the professor on their main website, but I did find him here: Alaric Naudé | Suwon University -

From the same website, here’s the “study” that Dr. Naudé made regarding Prostasia, which can be found here (although the website states that he hasn’t uploaded it yet): A Case Study via Sociolinguistic Analysis of Covert Pro-Paedophilia Organisation Registered as a Child Protection Charity and its links to Paedophilia Enablers in Academia and Academic Propaganda | Alaric Naudé -

I’m not familiar with SoKo academics either, but maybe there’s something here that could be useful?

Edit: While looking for info, I stumbled upon a YouTube video by Sydney Watson that talked about Dr. Naudé’s “study” on Prostasia: The university hiding the creepiest, darkest little secret - YouTube

In the video’s description, we can find this:

Check out Reduxx, whose research I used in making this video:

As it turns out, Sydney Watson is a right-wing transphobe: Sydney Watson decries trans women in female sports saying they are biological men (

Update: The professor is still at it:


Oh, I just spit their own threat back at them… With my own Chinese flair, of course: Nine familial exterminations - Wikipedia After all, there are 2 ways to end cycles of vengeance.

1 Like

Damn, he still riding the “high” of getting rejected from that journal. For a reactionary who complains about “critical race theory” he really wants those victim points.


He got published in ‘The Public Insight’, a relatively new publication with very little, if any, meaningful or consistent peer review or quality control, as there are also papers which go against some of the core tenets of Naude’s thesis published by the same journal.

I suspect that Naude’s paper might get de-published there as well, since it’s full of bigoted and defamatory statements about other academics, like Allyn Walker, and others (not to mention the Prostasia Foundation itself).


I just checked out The Public Insight… is this a proper academic journal or a right-wing/centrist-right blog?? What the hell am I looking at?


It’s someone’s personal project designed specifically to attack prevention organizations and add feigned legitimacy to retracted papers like Naude’s


an interesting point alaric naude brought up was the motives behind the creation of B4UACT.
hhhe doesn’t link the source and gets the name wrong. but it is real even though some links have died:

I’m not sure what the issue in those posts is supposed to be. Their goal is to help MAPs find support. They’ve never claimed to be a prevention organization afaik, even if that is one of the impacts of their work. They don’t advocate for changes to laws or do any lobbying work. It’s a research and support organization.


the thing is that some of the things said there comes across as pro contact or two faced.

to be fair he’s no longer involved as he has passed away. and organizations grow beyond their founders.

1 Like

I mean he may well be pro-c, but I’m still not sure how that’s relevant to B4U-ACT. The goals of the organization weren’t to change laws, so how would somebody’s contact stance affect those goals?

Just curious since your post seemed to imply some malicious motive in its formation whereas I read those posts as more indicative of his plans regarding future projects, separate from the organization.


it is relevant to the impression other people have of the organization. It’s brought up in Dr Naude’s paper in order imply a malicious motive behind that organization. while i think their goal is mostly providing therapy and sponsoring research, the name “B4UACT” does imply an interest in preventing child sex abuse.

i think b4uact may be anti contact now, but i do not know. In anycase, i imagine the therapists and researchers they work with would probably be anti contact.


I know of one Forum Mod (and that is essentially the extend I know about that orgs staff) that is pro contact. so they at least don´t have the hard line that other non Contact Orgs (like virped, wir-sind-auch-menschen usw) drive.


They talk more about their views on issues like contact stance here. They don’t take a moral position since it’s irrelevant to their focus on improving MAP wellbeing. Still, they discourage people from breaking laws, and to my knowledge, they’re not involved in any advocacy for changes to existing laws. That stance allows them to connect with pro-cs and other groups who may be at a higher risk of breaking laws without that support.