The following is a review which I wrote for Martin Doutré's 1999 book, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, on the Amazon.com website:
Martin Doutré's Ancient Celtic New Zealand is a very important examination of the evidence for an advanced ancient civilization that understood phi, pi, the size and shape of the earth, the intricate details of the celestial phenomena caused by earth's orbit and the axial rotation that leads to precession, and that could navigate the seas, mine for greenstone and copper, and construct precision monuments such as the pyramids of Giza and Stonehenge at a date in history that conventional theory says is impossible.
His first-hand work and insights provide a valuable new perspective that is different from alternative thinkers who have gone before him. The presence of extensive evidence from sites in the Americas, in lesser-known sites in Europe, and of course in New Zealand are added to the work that others have written about, and serve to help add credence to others who also perceive major gaps and flaws in the conventional framework bitterly defended by those currently controlling "academia."
Mr. Doutre's work breaks important new ground in the use of phi reductions, the analysis of recurring geometric patterns found in art around the globe, and theories concerning who these ancients were and where they traveled.
I have written a book which examines these issues using additional evidence from geology and mythology, and Mr. Doutré's theory was absolutely foundational to my own analysis (The Mathisen Corollary). I wholeheartedly recommend Mr. Doutré's book and his website (also called Ancient Celtic New Zealand).
Far from being racist or supremacist, his work is a contribution to all mankind in that it provides insights into the amazing past of our ancient predecessors (the ancestors of us all), which has been forgotten and at times deliberately hidden and even violently suppressed. Sadly, there are many today who would continue to suppress discussion of these issues and to marginalize those who try to analyze them. Don't let their voices dissuade you from considering the excellent work of Martin Doutré.
---------------
I would like to discuss this recommendation a little here on the Mathisen Corollary blog. Mr. Doutré has been called a racist in no uncertain terms in print on more than one occasion (see for example this "open letter" which labels him a purveyor of "Nazi pseudo-history").
It is unfortunate that highly charged epithets like these are thrown around at those who attempt to make an honest examination of history. Perhaps some of those hurling these charges of racism truly believe that Mr. Doutré's theory makes him a racist. It is also probable that some who level that charge do so as a way to silence opposing views, knowing that calling someone a racist is one of the fastest ways to marginalize someone and make him a pariah.
In my review above, and in my book as well, I try to make it very clear that not everyone who puts forward an alternative theory is motivated by racism.
I personally believe that all mankind is descended at a very recent date (less than 10,000 years ago, and probably less than 6,000 years ago) from the survivors of a cataclysmic global flood, and that therefore we are all more closely related than most people realize. We are all brothers and sisters (or at least cousins) in a very real sense.
I also believe that the amazing accomplishments and achievements of the ancient predecessors of Egypt and Sumer should be a source of wonder and joy for all people. If the histories of any modern branch of the human family contain some surprises as we peer further back into the mists of time, that should not in and of itself be a cause for one group to feel better or worse than another. We can all be astonished at the achievements of our most ancient ancestors.
Further, if archaeological evidence indicates that a people from one region or branch of the post-flood human family accomplished something many thousands of years ago, and if I assert that I feel the evidence is compelling that they did so, this does not in and of itself make me a racist, even if I happen to be descended from people who lived in that region or who look like that branch of the human family. How can I take credit for something someone did thousands of years before?
Of course, if I use that history to make claims that one ethnicity is superior or inferior to another, then I show myself to be a racist, but to simply claim that something happened is not the same as claiming that some piece of ancient history has implications for the branches of the human family today.
I have read Mr. Doutré's work extensively, and I have not come across evidence that he makes racist claims of the second sort described above, but rather that he makes claims of the first sort (in other words, that this or that happened, but not that this or that ancient event makes one group superior or inferior to another group today). In fact, on his website, he explicitly states that his site is intended "to promote a frank and open discussion of true ancient history" and that "politics and the agendas of racial groupings have no place here."
I have not personally met Mr. Doutré. I do not think he is a racist, but in terms of uncovering the truth for the enlightenment of others, it actually does not matter if he is or is not. If his analysis of the evidence found in actual archaeological sites and artifacts is a correct analysis of the facts, then it does not really matter to other thinkers whether or not he arrived at those conclusions because of some distasteful view or not (again, I must stress that from what I have read of his work, I see no evidence that he holds any racist views).
To criticize his findings by attacking his personal beliefs is really an unhelpful ad hominem argument, and is similar to saying that he cannot possibly have arrived at any true conclusions because he holds religious beliefs that I disagree with, or because he has a tendency towards overindulging in alcohol (again, these are only examples for the sake of argument, and I do not mean to imply at all that any of these sorts of labels are true).
If I was seeking to make the right dietary choices to prevent heart disease or diabetes, and I came across the work of someone who had views outside of the mainstream but was able to back them up with plenty of clinical evidence, I would consider those views very carefully as I decided who I should listen to. After all, it is an important matter to my own health and well-being. I would consider the arguments of the "alternative" thinker very carefully, even if all the academics in the mainstream derided him for having fewer academic degrees than they had, or saying that he wasn't a doctor at all. I would be especially suspicious if they told me that his views on heart disease and diabetes were not worth looking at because he himself was a racist, or an occasional heavy drinker. In fact, even if it turned out that he was actually a racist or a heavy drinker, if I decided that his arguments about diet and heart disease were correct, I would follow them anyway. It would be foolish to jeopardize my own health by following the recommendations of academics who were wrong, just because I had a personal dislike for the outside voice who actually was correct about the matter.
I feel it is important to make this point because those who disagree with my own work will no doubt find it easier to attack me with ugly labels than to discuss the evidence that I bring up, just as they find it easier to do with Mr. Doutré (who brings up so much evidence that his opponents must be somewhat intimidated). I also feel it is important to make this point because in my review of his book I wholeheartedly endorse both his book and his website, and I would not do so if I thought that his work was a bunch of spurious claims motivated by mere racism, as his critics contend.
I wish Martin Doutré and all those who are seeking to uncover the truth about the past the very best in their endeavors, and I caution readers who come across the inevitable invectives of those who hurl incendiary terms such as "racist" and "Nazi" to be wary of those who do so simply to marginalize or discredit analysis that they want to silence.
Those who are seeking to understand mankind's ancient past must unfortunately be aware of these modern issues.
In my review above, and in my book as well, I try to make it very clear that not everyone who puts forward an alternative theory is motivated by racism.
I personally believe that all mankind is descended at a very recent date (less than 10,000 years ago, and probably less than 6,000 years ago) from the survivors of a cataclysmic global flood, and that therefore we are all more closely related than most people realize. We are all brothers and sisters (or at least cousins) in a very real sense.
I also believe that the amazing accomplishments and achievements of the ancient predecessors of Egypt and Sumer should be a source of wonder and joy for all people. If the histories of any modern branch of the human family contain some surprises as we peer further back into the mists of time, that should not in and of itself be a cause for one group to feel better or worse than another. We can all be astonished at the achievements of our most ancient ancestors.
Further, if archaeological evidence indicates that a people from one region or branch of the post-flood human family accomplished something many thousands of years ago, and if I assert that I feel the evidence is compelling that they did so, this does not in and of itself make me a racist, even if I happen to be descended from people who lived in that region or who look like that branch of the human family. How can I take credit for something someone did thousands of years before?
Of course, if I use that history to make claims that one ethnicity is superior or inferior to another, then I show myself to be a racist, but to simply claim that something happened is not the same as claiming that some piece of ancient history has implications for the branches of the human family today.
I have read Mr. Doutré's work extensively, and I have not come across evidence that he makes racist claims of the second sort described above, but rather that he makes claims of the first sort (in other words, that this or that happened, but not that this or that ancient event makes one group superior or inferior to another group today). In fact, on his website, he explicitly states that his site is intended "to promote a frank and open discussion of true ancient history" and that "politics and the agendas of racial groupings have no place here."
I have not personally met Mr. Doutré. I do not think he is a racist, but in terms of uncovering the truth for the enlightenment of others, it actually does not matter if he is or is not. If his analysis of the evidence found in actual archaeological sites and artifacts is a correct analysis of the facts, then it does not really matter to other thinkers whether or not he arrived at those conclusions because of some distasteful view or not (again, I must stress that from what I have read of his work, I see no evidence that he holds any racist views).
To criticize his findings by attacking his personal beliefs is really an unhelpful ad hominem argument, and is similar to saying that he cannot possibly have arrived at any true conclusions because he holds religious beliefs that I disagree with, or because he has a tendency towards overindulging in alcohol (again, these are only examples for the sake of argument, and I do not mean to imply at all that any of these sorts of labels are true).
If I was seeking to make the right dietary choices to prevent heart disease or diabetes, and I came across the work of someone who had views outside of the mainstream but was able to back them up with plenty of clinical evidence, I would consider those views very carefully as I decided who I should listen to. After all, it is an important matter to my own health and well-being. I would consider the arguments of the "alternative" thinker very carefully, even if all the academics in the mainstream derided him for having fewer academic degrees than they had, or saying that he wasn't a doctor at all. I would be especially suspicious if they told me that his views on heart disease and diabetes were not worth looking at because he himself was a racist, or an occasional heavy drinker. In fact, even if it turned out that he was actually a racist or a heavy drinker, if I decided that his arguments about diet and heart disease were correct, I would follow them anyway. It would be foolish to jeopardize my own health by following the recommendations of academics who were wrong, just because I had a personal dislike for the outside voice who actually was correct about the matter.
I feel it is important to make this point because those who disagree with my own work will no doubt find it easier to attack me with ugly labels than to discuss the evidence that I bring up, just as they find it easier to do with Mr. Doutré (who brings up so much evidence that his opponents must be somewhat intimidated). I also feel it is important to make this point because in my review of his book I wholeheartedly endorse both his book and his website, and I would not do so if I thought that his work was a bunch of spurious claims motivated by mere racism, as his critics contend.
I wish Martin Doutré and all those who are seeking to uncover the truth about the past the very best in their endeavors, and I caution readers who come across the inevitable invectives of those who hurl incendiary terms such as "racist" and "Nazi" to be wary of those who do so simply to marginalize or discredit analysis that they want to silence.
Those who are seeking to understand mankind's ancient past must unfortunately be aware of these modern issues.
