Organisation of the Zuist Church – Zuist enhood and Zuist flags

This pamphlet proposes a hierarchic and geographic social organisation of Zuism, anchored in Heaven and coming down to the Earth as a three-tiered structure of mankind, reflecting the order of Heaven. The Zuist Church is thus interpreted as a means for a reinstitution of An, God-as-Space-Time, the reattuning of humanity with its rhythms, with the divine time, and therefore the establishment of a new vertical celestial civilisation, giving new meaning to the nonsensical fidgeting of all forces in the horizontalisation resulting from the disintegration of the machinery of Western modernity.


The British scholars Roland Littlewood (anthropologist) and Simon Dein (psychiatrist), in their essay entitled Did Christianity lead to schizophrenia? (2013) recognise the fundamental characteristics of the Christian belief as the same as those of schizophrenic psychopathology. We further analyse the roots of these characteristics as follows:

Firstly, Christianity does not recognise the immanence of God (what the Greeks called Ouranos, Khronos and Zeus, the Latins Deus, and the Mesopotamians An 𒀭), does not identify God as manifest in the world as Heaven and its ongoing ordering (creatio continua) of pre-existing matter (the cosmological Earth). Instead, what is called “God” in Christianity is an abstract entity which created the world ex nihilo as a separate object, in the past, and what is called “Heaven” is a future and transcendent dimension.1

Twothly, Christianity stiffens the ordering of Heaven — what the Greeks called Logos, the Latins Ratio or Oratio, and the Mesopotamians Lil 𒆤 or DINGIREnlil 𒀭𒂗𒆤, the “GODSTARMaster of the Spirit” — as a historicised spatio-temporal person (Jesus of Nazareth in Palestine), thus bereaving the world of meaning, since the world is no longer recognised as being the ongoing generation of the changeful working of Heaven. By not recognising God as Heaven and its ordering, and interpreting what we Zuists call Lil as a historicised, spatiotemporally fixed person whom is the only incarnation of the delocated, transcendent, non-existent “God”, Christianity in fact ousts both God and its ordering (the Lil, the Logos) from the world and from mankind (from the human reason, mind or thought), bereaving the world and mankind of life, threatening to kill the world and human thought.2

Thirdly, upon these bases, Christianity uproots the individual from its natural umbegoing world, its context, giving it the illusion of an exclusive relationship with the abstract “God”, through the spatiotemporally fixed “Jesus”. Christianity pretends to be the only way to the delocated “God”, for all humanity. This results in a hypertrophy of the ego of the Christianised individual ripped off from any context, an illusory omnipotentisation of the individual reason which is no longer linked to the universal Ratio, to the order of Heaven, and results as well in the individual reason’s objectification and potential violent exploitation of the world.3

The Christian conception of the Logos is a stiffening, a sclerotisation of thought and word, which gives way to the psychotic maddening of human reason.4 Christianity, at one time, rejects the actual world and the potentialities at play in it (it is a loss of the being-in-the-world, Heidegger’s in-der-Welt-Sein), and drives the intelligence of the uprooted and hypertrophied individuals towards an otherworldly future, resulting in alienation and anomy, and in the destruction of the world,5 which is otherwise, and naturally, always organised by the presencing awareness of mankind. Christianity bereaves humanity of its role, which according to all traditional Eurasian religio-cosmologies, well represented in the Mesopotamian and Chinese traditions, is to continuously co-create and re-work the world together with the gods, in attunement with the order of the God of Heaven.6

Such psychosis, which began in early Christianity, was reinforced with the Protestant Reformation and the secular processes which it triggered, including industrial capitalism, and is fully concomitant with “Westernisation” (including “modernisation” and the liberal idea of the abstract, anomic, atomised, isolated “individual” which is “free from” whatever contextual bounds and roles7), ultimately destroys the agency of the human being. The individual loses “any sense of naturalness or capacity for spontaneous action, thus exacerbating self-alienation”. After the loss of the world (worsened in modern industrialised societies, which are senseless as they have arisen from the Christian objectification of the world), the individual “is plunged into an idiosyncratic internalised experience, into a set of fragmented pluralistic alternatives in which the act of choice itself becomes problematic, and in which the individual self is increasingly restricted to its processes, indeed it itself becoming an object for scrutiny”.8

The Italian historian of religion Ernesto de Martino came to similar insights in his unfinished work La fine del mondo (1977), through his study of the different structures of time which different religious worldviews give access to. He found that the modern West is subject to a loss of meaning (even on the plane of language, which always reflects the relationship between humanity and the world), psychopathological stiffening of thought within a horizonless relativism, a relativistic fragmentation launched into a materialist progress. He attributes this state of things to Christianity’s historicisation of myth and fixation of it in time — the life of Jesus, which is placed at the centre of history —, which pretends to be the final solution of all being, thus blocking and ousting the creativity of the symbol (myth and rite), the device traditionally used to renovate time — the spiral time of traditional societies —, and projecting a linear time, or teleological plan, waiting for an otherworldly “Kingdom of Heaven”, which, having utterly failed, has become secularised and has turned into a purposeless fall into material Chaos, a reification of becoming (historical time) bereft of being; the ultimate schizophrenia without possible reintegration; the “end of the world”, of the Western world.9

By uprooting the individual from the world and casting it into private psychosis, by deadening the world through the denial of its potentialities, by disguising itself behind a fake egalitarianism (which is actually a psychotic symptom) determined by a private relationship with an abstract God, Christianity may be straightforwardly defined as a levelling project of destruction of the natural (i.e. given by birth itself) and healthy plurality of the world.


Christianity opened the way to the loss of Heaven and thus to the psychotic maddening of human reason, which was projected into an endless becoming, exempting mankind from its role of co-creation of the cosmos. The psychosis was worsened by Protestantism, which, ultimately becoming secularised, brought to the nonsensical and horizontal fidgeting of human forces in the financial-industrial machination of Western capitalism, all projected into the ideology of material progress, the secularisation of the linear time of Christianity, of the never-coming “Kingdom of Heaven” of the non-existing God of Christianity. It is worthwhile to note that the Christian psychosis is a private psychosis, a psychosis which brings within itself a movement of privatisation. De Martino clearly identifies the phases of civil institution as anabasis/anastrophe or ascending and public-wise movement, while the phases of civil collapse as catabasis/catastrophe or descending and private-wise. They correspond, in the life of the individuals, to movements of communal participation and healing, and movements of private internalisation and shattering, psychopathological breakdown. Modern Western civilisation is subject to what he calls an “inversion of sign”, by which anastrophic growth, or altruistic publicisation, turns into the opposite movement of catastrophic collapse, or egoistic privatisation.10

As a reintegration of the psychosis of the Western world, De Martino proposed the establishment of an “integral humanism”, both a “religion of man” and a new “unifying discipline which ever-renews itself in order to adapt to the ever-changing multiplicity”, meant to overcome the Christian theological abstraction and its purposeless temporal projection, putting at the centre the Heideggerian concept of Dasein as a “presentification”, the conscious symbolising, time-renewing, space-ordering, world-making, cosmifying activity of a mankind aware of its creative role of mediator of Heaven on Earth.11 Zuism may fulfill De Martino’s vision, and also the Fourth Political Theory opened by the Russian Neo-Eurasianist philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, whom highlights the non-linear morphology of time, the fact that time is the mind itself working in the present, and therefore the “reversibility of time”, the possibility to recover concepts from the past to compose new projects for future societies, new institutionalisations of space-time established by the creative “action of presencing accomplished by the mind”.12 Furthermore, with its doctrine of the amargi 𒂼𒅈𒄄, Zuism may represent a movement of communal participation and altruistic publicisation, establishing temples as communal properties and banks of shared goods,13 just like what temples are in the Chinese tradition (communal property,14 instituted and operating by crowdfunding15).

Zuism intends to heal the disruption brought by Christianity, proposing itself as a platform for a re-institutionalisation of the creativity of God-as-Time-Space-Being, An, a re-attunement of mankind with its yearly rhythm, a re-hoisting of the axis mundi, that is to say a re-threading of the order of Heaven, the reconnection of its three moments (An in itself, Enlil, Enki; or Deus, the universal Ratio and the localised human ratio) in the very fabric of society. The Zuist Church intends to be a new institutionalisation of human society as a vertical celestial civilisation, anchored in Heaven (An) and bringing its order (Enlil) down to the Earth (Enki). Icelanders, the people of Thule or Hyperborea (the land “Beyond the North”, i.e. closest to the origin of all things, nearest to the God in the heights of Heaven), the people whom most directly may experience the time of An, the God-Time, God-Year and God-Thought chanted in their runic songs,16 shall have a crucial role in such new institutionalisation of space-time. It is a system which provides unity (An, the Space-Time) while at the same time taking into account plurality (the various dingir, the plural times of the various entities of the world).


The lugal 𒈗 (“great man”) is of supreme importance in the terrestrial hierarchy of the Zuist Church. He is a religio-political figure, a sacerdotal king who represents the link connecting the three realms of Heaven (An), Earth (Ki) and humanity. He is the reflection of Heaven on Earth, specifically embodying Heaven’s third aspect, which is DINGIREnki 𒀭𒂗𒆠, the “GODSTARMaster of the Squared (i.e. Ordered) Earth”, representing human craft and productivity in alliance with the creation of the gods; representing humanity co-creating with the gods a celestially-centred kingdom where all the spirits are at peace and from where all evil demons are cast away. The lugal is always subordinated to the god whom he represents; he represents in person the god of the city (polyad god) and its temple — the city (and its population) and the temple being the god’s body and head, respectively — but has no personal properties, all properties belonging to the god of whom the lugal is a mere intermediary.

Within society, the lugal works just like the “personal god” (also referable to as tutelary spirit, genius, numen or demon) of an individual and the father of a family. Like the personal god generating and organising the individual (joining the ishtaru, which is the individual’s female aspect, or matter, or “personal goddess”17), and the father generating and organising a family in conjunction with the mother, his wife, so the lugal is the father of the city and its population, embodying the latter’s tutelary spirit. The lugal, endowed with divine grace like the Sun (Utu), channels with magical words the heavenly forces of birth and waxing, and casts away the evil ghosts of waning and death, the evil spirits which try to haunt disrupted, atomised and anomised populations, such as those which are proliferating in the contemporary Western world and are preyed upon by the forces of the machination of rootless and uprooting globalism (international banks, foundations, organisations).

In the words of the Italian Assyriologist Pietro Mander:

In general, we may affirm that kingship constitutes the main axis mundi between the society of men and the divine world. Its main feature, […] is its subordination to the major shrine of a city: Indeed, the sovereign is nothing more than the steward or the administrator of the property of the polyad god, whom is the only true owner of the city and of its territory.18

By descending the axle which, from Heaven, reaches the earth, we immediately meet the king. He, besides having the role as the shaft of transmission between Heaven and earth, also represents the constant reference paradigm for all the people who dwell in the kingdom. Thus, just as the king becomes the tutelary numen of his kingdom, in analogy with the personal god with respect to the individual, so the pater familias must become the tutelary numen of his household, filling it with “divine” grace, the only active force able to dispel evil entities. About this, it is worthwhile to remember that some sovereigns were attributed with the epithet “sun god of the country” […].19

The lugal, just like the father of a family, should represent the morally perfected man as a universal being, able to understand divinity, embody it, and put it into practice, into moralising activity. He has the duty of making the reign whole according to the rules of the gods, integrating the outcasts into healthy orders of being, applying justice in judging good-doers and wrong-doers, exorcising evil demons, and ultimately expanding such healthy, divinely-ordered state; if he succeeds and his successes are acknowledged, he has the right to build or expand the temple dedicated to the god of the city. The temple, and its central tower, represents the sublimation of material chaos into gradually ordered heavenlier states of being.

As expressed by Mander:

The sovereign, being, so to speak, the “antenna” of humanity towards the divine world, constitutes the realisation of man, intended as a whole and universal being. As a living symbol, the king realises himself once he has attained his purposes. That is to say, once he has complied with the divine wishes; once he has established justice in the kingdom; once he has defended and supported the weakest; once he has widened the boundaries of the cosmos repelling the frontiers of chaos farther away; once he has made his country prosperous. At this point, he may conclude his work with a supremely symbolic act: Building the temple, or restoring it if it already existed. The architectural artefact represents the universe, on one hand, and on the other hand it is made up of brute matter, which, shaped by human work, is arranged in a precise order which enables its heightening from the earth towards Heaven. In this respect, the ziqqurrat tower, whose mass refines itself as long as its elevation rises, fully expresses the effort to elevate brute matter, by refining it, up to the sky which the tower reaches with a minimal mass.20


Zuism intends to be a “rectification” of being, a reintegration of the secular and the sacred, thus a new “orthodoxy” (cf. the Greek ὀρθός orthós, “right”) irradiating from Iceland to all of Europe, and potentially worldwide. According to the Mesopotamian tradition, the divinely-ordered city “has its roots in Heaven”, which means that its nodes of power and its activities are modelled after the constellations’ patterns and their movements. The temple-cities of Mesopotamia were distributed in the region in analogy with the stars of the sky, each of them being the seat—or “body” —of a given deity. The major city was Nippur, seat of Enlil and where the religious calendar was administered.21

Reykjavík shall be the new Nippur, body of Enlil, called “Enlil City” among the Zuists. The Zuist Church shall be organised according to a hierarchy which reflects the order of Heaven on Earth, thus into a three-tiered structure of authority, a threefold “enhood” (i.e. priesthood, en 𒂗 or ensi 𒑐𒋼𒋛 being the generic Sumerian word for “priest”), as already well described in the essay De civitate Caeli.22 This shall be meant to establish a celestially-centred civilisation, a “Gate of Heaven” (𒆍𒀭𒊏 Ka.dingir.ra in Sumerian, Babilu in Akkadian), to verticalise all the forces of society towards the supernal God of Heaven, the supreme good end, that is to say to attune all the forces at play in society, which articulate in space, with the rhythm of God-as-Time-Being, with the supreme order of the constellations of the northern culmen of the skies — An, in one single word.

The sacerdotal-territorial organisation of the Zuist Church shall reflect the three rings of Heaven:

The lugals of An-as-Enlil (the “Master of the Spirit”), with a lugal for every state — also called “lugalship” —, shall be the highest sacerdotal rank, possibly recognising the Lugal of Iceland as the primus inter pares, the leader of all lugals, thus organising themselves in a synodal structure. They shall be associated with the celestial “Way of Enlil”, the ring of the astral map closer to the north ecliptic pole in Draco and containing the Chariot constellations, respectively the quiet heart and active power of the supreme An; the dragon shall thus be their symbol, together with the eagle — both representations of heavenly wisdom (zu). They shall have, as the highest sacerdotal rank, knowledgeable in all matters pertaining to the mystery of the sky and divinity, juridical power. Their garments shall be of the colour associated, according to the Mesopotamian tradition, to the inner band of the astral map of the sky: luludanitu, which is an ensemble of white, red and black.

Lugal of An-Enlil

The ens of An-and-Inanna shall be one for each territorial jurisdiction or great “enship” within the lugalships, corresponding to the regions within states. As leaders of territorial divisions they shall deal with territorial matters, mediating the supreme intelligence of Heaven, represented by the lugal, on Earth, or into matter, in this case represented by Inanna, the “Lady of Heaven”. They shall thus have an executive function, and shall mediate between the lugal and the various local communities of Zuist believers, putting the lugal’s decisions into practice and presenting the communities’ instances in front of the lugal. They shall be associated with the celestial “Way of An-Inanna”, the middle ring of the astral map of the sky, and with its colour in traditional Mesopotamian imagination: lapislazuli blue; their garments shall be of this colour.

En of An-Inanna

The ens of An-as-Enki (the “Master of the Earth”) shall govern, within each great enship, the “small enships”, or popular communities of believers, determined by locality (for instance, the community of a village), ethnicity (for instance, an ethnic minority in a given state), kinship (an extended family or groups of them), professional guild (for instance, the category of ironmongers), or simply devotion to a particular deity. Besides working as the organisers of all the matters of the communities, they shall represent the communities in front of the ens of An-and-Inanna. They shall be associated with the celestial “Way of Enki”, the ring of the astral map of the sky farther from the north ecliptic pole in Draco. Their garments shall be of the colour traditionally associated to this band of the sky: jasper green.

En of An-Enki

Representation of the organisation of the Zuist Church of Iceland, an exemplification of the general theory enucleated hereinbefore: The Lugal of Iceland (represented in the map by the red sign 𒀭) shall be the supreme leader with direct power over the ens of An-Inanna and direct jurisdiction over Reykjavík and Höfuðborgarsvæðið, its direct “lugalship”; there shall be one en of An-Inanna (represented by the blue sign 𒀭) for each region (“enship”); and many ens of An-Enki (represented by the green sign 𒀭) leading many local communities (“small enships”) within each region, led by the en of An-Inanna of each region.


Horizontal aspect ratio: 7:1:2:1:14; vertical aspect ratio: 7:1:2:1:7.

1. Flag of the Zuist Church

Representing the whole Zuist community


  • An grapheme – FFFFFFFF
  • Background and edge – D40000FF and 000000FF

A white An grapheme at the centre, on a red background framed by a black edge. The colours are those of luludanitu, the colour of the ring of the sky which directly surrounds the north ecliptic pole in the constellation Draco and encompasses the north celestial pole of the Chariots, thus the colour of An as Enlil, that is to say of An manifesting as the world and its spiritual order (Ansbrandt 2018b, p. 4).

2. Flag of An and the seven star-gods Anunnaki

Representing the manifestation theology


  • An grapheme – DDFF55FF
  • The seven star-gods manifesting the powers of An (right to left): Jupiter/Marduk – FFFFFFFF; Saturn/Ninurta – 000000FF; Mars/Nergal – FF2A2AFF; Venus/Inanna – 2AFFD5FF; Mercury/Nabu – FF7F2AFF; Moon/Nanna – 55FF55FF; Sun/Utu – FFD42AFF
  • Background – 1C1C24FF

The Anunnaki (“Heaven on Earth”) seven gods represent the seven stars of the Chariot constellations and the seven planets of the system of the Sun, their reflection. They are the seven stages of manifestation of An (the tree of life), the “heavenly writing”, and the stairway for spiritual ascension towards its supreme heart. They shape all beings in matter according to differing configurations, and they are associated to seven colours (Ansbrandt 2018b, p. 7).

3. Flag of the three skies and the Zuist enhood

Representing the hierarchic organisation


  • Left stripe – 008000FF
  • Central stripe and An grapheme – FFFFFFFF and D40000FF
  • Right side – 0044AAFF
  • Top and bottom bands – 000000FF

This flag represents the sacerdotal and territorial organisation of the Zuist Church. The white stripe at the centre, with the An grapheme and the top and bottom black bands, represents the all-overseeing lugalship of An-as-Enlil. The blue stripe to the right represents the enship of An-and-Inanna, while the green stripe to the left represents the small enship of An-as-Enki. The colours are those associated to the three concentric rings of the astral mapping of the northern culmen of the sky, whose centre is the north ecliptic pole in Draco, heart of An (Ansbrandt 2018b, p. 4).

Ansbrandt of Reykjavík, February 2019

The article is also availabe in PDF and on Academia

CC BY-SA 3.0


1. Ansbrandt (2018d), pp. 5–7.

2. Ibidem.

3. Ibidem.

4. Ansbrandt (2018c), p. 7.

5. Littlewood & Dein (2013), note 19: “[…] monetarisation and credit, the market, interest, industrialisation, and communication technology, all of which have led to a gradual ‘disembedding’ from our pagan Being in the World”. For the Zuist definition of the word “Pagan”, according to its original Latin etymology meaning “civil”, see the introductory pamphlet What is Zuism (Ansbrandt 2018a).

6. Ansbrandt (2018d), p. 6. Also see: Mander (2011), p. 14.

7. Dugin (2012), pp. 51–52.

8. Littlewood & Dein (2013), passim. Also, Christianity consists in “[…] an emphasis on scrutinising and questioning the convoluted workings of a hidden and immaterial self, seen as distinct from other similar selves and from the natural world, now with private communication with an omniscient presence who already knows one’s thoughts and emotions, and with ambiguous agency for personal actions and experience in the world which are no longer to be taken as tacit and unproblematic […]”.

9. De Martino (1977), pp. 294–296, 311–321, 329–335, 466–470, 472–474 & 482–483.

10. Ibidem, pp. 62–67 & 256.

11. Ibidem, pp. 294–296, 311–321, 329–335, 466–470, 472–474 & 482–483.

12. Dugin (2012), pp. 70 & 159.

13. Ansbrandt (2018c), pp. 9­–10.

14. Abramson, Daniel Benjamin (2011). “Places for the Gods: Urban Planning as Orthopraxy and Heteropraxy in China”. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 29 (1): 67–88.

15. Hao, Lizhou (12 January 2017). “Crowdfunding and the Family Temple Economy”. Realising Eurasia: Civilisation and Moral Economy in the 21st Century. Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology.

16. Dugin (2008), passim.

17. Mander (2011), p. 9.

18. Ibidem, p. 8.

19. Ibidem, pp. 16–17.

20. Ibidem, p. 15.

21. Ibidem, pp. 7–8.

22. Ansbrandt (2018c), pp. 10–12.


An: God-Sky-Time-Being, and the celestial trinity of Eurasia

This essay further develops the work begun in Zuist theology – The trinity of An, the seven deities, the word and the measures and De civitate Caeli. It discusses the three celestial forms of An, through a comparison with analogous conceptions found throughout Eurasia. The essay then discusses An’s essence as both time and being, and thus as organisation of space, and the role of the sovereign as An’s channel on earth in a celestial civilisation. The essay also strengthens the critique of the errors of Christianity seen from the Zuist theological and sociological perspective.

In all the traditional religions of Eurasia, God is conceived as a universal power whose visible manifestation is the vault of Heaven, with its stars, hinged at the ecliptic north celestial pole, the unmoving centre of the universe, with the precessional north celestial pole, and its nearby constellations, spinning around it. The fixed ecliptic north celestial pole is coiled by the constellation of the Dragon (Draco), while the moving precessional north celestial pole is umbegone by the constellations of the two Chariots (also called Dippers or Bears; Ursa Major and Ursa Minor), the Big Chariot and Little Chariot, which often represent its male and female aspect, respectively.1 Its centre, in the current epoch, is in α Ursae Minoris (Polaris), the first star of the “handle” of the cluster of the Little Dipper.

Artistic representations of the constellations of the Dragon (Draco) and of the Bears, the Little and the Great Bear (also known as Dippers or Chariots), at the north celestial pole, from Gaius Julius Hyginus’ Poeticon Astronomicon, dated 1482.


The ecliptic pole represents the quiescent heart of the supreme God of Heaven, while the precessional pole represents its changeful activity. A third aspect is its terrestrial power, and it is incarnated among humans by the sovereign of a divinely ordered civilisation and by the father of each divinely ordered family.2 This trinity of persons of the supreme God  is represented in all Eurasian religions. In the most ancient tradition, the Sumerian-Mesopotamian one, they are ① 𒀭 An (the supreme “Heaven”), ② 𒀭𒂗𒆤 Enlil (the “Lord of the Spirit”3) and ③ 𒀭𒂗𒆠 Enki (the “Lord of the Earth”), respectively Anu or Ilu/El, Ellil or Bel/Baal and Ea/Ya in the Akkadian-Semitic rendition. The three facets of the supreme God of Heaven are also conceived as the spirits of the three rings of the sky, and the respective constellations, revolving around the ecliptic pole.4 Zuism, which proposes itself as the re-embodiment of the Sumerian-Mesopotamian tradition, may therefore also provide a theological platform and reference point for all Eurasian religions.

Representation of the fixed north ecliptic pole (NEP) and the moving north celestial pole (NCP), which is centred in α Ursae Minoris (Polaris) in our epoch. Note that the two Little and Big Chariot (or Little and Big Dipper) are represented in the four phases of their rotation around it, imagining the blue ones as the current phase. The red Draco, otherwise, is not represented in its rotation.
This configuration of the northern culmen of the sky is known in many Eurasian religious cultures as representing the physical manifestation of the supreme God of Heaven, in its quiescent (NEP) and active (NCP) form. The seven stars of the Chariots are also regarded as the operative power of the God of Heaven, and they are reflected in the seven planets. In the Mesopotamian tradition the Dippers are also represented as the Bull of Heaven (Didier 2009, Vol. I, pp. 113–119).

In religious cultures which followed in time, and continued, the Sumerian-Mesopotamian tradition, the three aspects of God are represented as follows:

  • Taranis (Dis Pater), Esus and Toutatis in Celtic cultures;5
  • Tiān or 上帝 Shàngdì, 黃帝 Huángdì and 炎帝 Yándì in Chinese culture;6
  • Amun, Ra and Ptah in Egyptian culture;7
  • Odin, Thor and Frey in Germanic cultures;8
  • Jupiter (Deus Pater), Mars and Quirinus in Roman culture;9
  • Deivos or Svarog, Perun and Veles in Slavic cultures;10
  • Varuna, Indra or Mitra and Aryaman in Vedic Sanskrit culture.11

As explained by Wim van den Dungen in his analysis of Egyptian theology, the three aspects represent, reprectively, ① the hidden essence and principle of unity, ② the luminous presence and principle of filiation, and ③ the physical solidity and principle of realisation of the supreme God of the universe.  All the lesser gods are sparkles of the supreme God and they themselves manifest through such threefold nature.12 In Greek philosophy, the three persons of the God of Heaven are variously rendered in intellectualised formulations: ① The utmost, unknowable essence is the Form of Good in Platonism and the Primum Movens in Aristotelianism; ② the second person is the Logos (straightforwardly identified as Enlil in Sumerian-Mesopotamian theology by the Assyriologist Pietro Mander); and ③ the third person becomes the Anima Mundi, which descends from the Logos.13 The three aspects of God and three bands of the sky are also associated, as thoroughly studied by Georges Dumézil, to three functional classes in society and to three colours. The three functional orders are ① the magical and juridical function of the priestly class, ② the executive function of the warrior class, and ③ the productive function of cultivators, farmers and craftsmen.14 The colours are, in Mesopotamia, respectively, ① luludanitu—which is an ensemble of white, red and black—associated to An-Enlil, and to the inner ring of the sky (wherein Enlil himself is identified as MULApin, i.e. “STARPlough”, which is the constellation of the Triangulum), closer to the ecliptic north celestial pole (An itself) and centred in it; ② lapislazuli-blue associated to An-Inanna, and to the middle ring of the sky (wherein Inanna herself is identified as MULDili.bat, which may mean “STARForbearing” or “STARDaisy” and is Venus) between the inner and the outer rings; ③ jasper-green associated to Enki, and to the outer ring of the sky (wherein Enki himself is identified as MULIku, i.e. “STARField”, that is the constellation of the Square of Pegasus), farther from An. In later Indo-European cultures, the three colours are almost invariably ① white, ② red and ③ black,15 associated respectively to the sacerdotal, the warrior, and the productive function.16

Representation of the three bands of the sky around the ecliptic north celestial pole, with their constellations. This is also the wheel of the year, of the time of God, as described in the following parts of the essay.


The eight-arrowed star symbol of Dugin’s Neo-Eurasianism. According to Nad (2014) it represents “the compass, something that provides orientation, introducing order in the seemingly chaotic space, the geometric symbol of the universe”. It is a symbol of “stars”, God, the gods and men as gods.

Cross symbols, including the pan-Eurasian swastika symbol (also illustrated at page 2 of the present essay), the Mesopotamian An 𒀭 grapheme which is the same as the “Gate of God” (𒆍𒀭𒊏 Ka.dingir.ra in Sumerian, Babilu in Akkadian) and as the modern eight-arrows star symbol of Alexander Dugin’s Neo-Eurasianism and Fourth Political Theory,17 traditionally represent the organisation of the sky centred around the ecliptic north celestial pole, the operating heart of space-time, of the supreme God of the universe.18

As explained by Mander, the grapheme 𒀭 An, which means “Heaven”, but also more general “divinity” (dingir in Sumerian, ilum in Akkadian), also has the meanings of “spike”, “cluster”, “petiole”, and is also frequently interpreted as meaning “star”, “asterism”, though these, mul in Sumerian, are more precisely represented by doubling (𒀭𒀭) or tripling the An grapheme. On a philosophical level, its most appropriate rendition is “centre of irradiation” and “navel of the world” (a concept treated by Mircea Eliade), which emanates the web of the world (personified by the goddess Uttu, “Spider”, the last daughter of Enki19), which connects all things; it is the sacred centre shared by all entities. It is well represented by the Sumerian figurative meanings of the spike composed of many spikelets, the bunch of grapes, and the petiole from which the fruit (metaphor of the world) hangs.20

However, due to the centuries-long errors of Christianity, these symbols have lost their original meaning, and what they represent is no longer widely acknowledged. Christianity appropriated the triune conception of the God of Heaven from pan-Eurasian theology, reformulating it in the terms of ① God as the Father, ② God as the Holy Spirit and ③ God as the Son. The fault of Christian theology was to try to fix, to stiffen, the creative operation of the universe (the Logos, the second and third persons of God in traditional Eurasian theology) in a definitive way, as one single spatio-temporal person (Jesus of Nazareth), and at the same time to abstract the supreme God of the universe, no longer identifying it as visibly manifest in the order of Heaven hinged at the ecliptic and precessional north celestial poles, but conceiving it as a transcendent entity. Due to the same corruption of ideas, “Heaven” was no longer identified as the thisworldly sky, but as a future otherworld.21

As the selling of a relative spatio-temporal entity and way of thought (Jesus and his teaching) as the absolute truth, Christianity is a channelling of chaos in the world, inherently “madness and violence”, as it denies the worth of other ways to reach truth, philosophy—i.e. to understand the principle of the universe, God, in its multiple manifestations and operations as Heaven in the world. Christianity, ultimately, denies thought; smothers thought and smothers truth itself, denying its living and changing manifoldness.22

Moreover, Christian eschatology and the transcendentalisation of Heaven projects the thought of individuals away from the present and from the potentialities at play in it. According to the British anthropologists and psychiatrists Roland Littlewood and Simon Dein, Christianity is a psychosis. The fundamental features of Christian mindset are the same that are found in medical diagnoses of psychosis: “An omniscient deity, a decontexualised self, ambiguous agency, a downplaying of immediate sensory data, and a scrutiny of the self and its reconstitution in conversion”.23 The decontextualisation or alienation of the self—its eradication from mankind’s divine role in-between Heaven and Earth (𒀭𒆠 Anki),24 which is to co-work with the gods, through the 𒈨 me (the “measures”, “means”, “manners” or “morals”), for the continuous realisation of the cosmos; to co-create with the gods25—brings to its hypertrophy, illusory omnipotentisation, self-analysis of its own aspects and functioning, and estrangement from reality within an exclusive relationship with an all-seeing, non-existing “delocated” God of Christianity, so that the self is bereft of “any sense of naturalness or capacity for spontaneous action”, in a process which increasingly exacerbates self-alienation and loss of the world.26

As it is explained by Littlewood and Dein:27

As agency is withdrawn from the natural world, from others, from animals, plants, stars, and spirits, our individual agency appears enhanced and yet there remains the uneasy balance between the “is it me?” and the “is it something external?” […] Many external causes, spirits, and stars, not only no longer have agency but are no longer validated by our society, so any personal explanations of an external locus of control become increasingly idiosyncratic and divorced from our common social life. […] This type of estrangement from experience (later reinforced by a number of secular and religious developments) fits well with Sass’ criteria for the reflexive self-consciousness that has perhaps propelled us into schizophrenia.


The supreme God of the north celestial pole, An, is the essence of the consciousness and idea of the empire, that is to say the structuration of society in accordance with Heaven, spatiotemporally aligned with it, with the time of God, with God-as-Time which is God-as-Being.28 The imperial idea is the only one capable of realising the true essence of mankind: That is to say, to realise humanity as a polar phenomenon and to realise its role of bridge between Heaven and Earth, of the order of Heaven on Earth; building temples to the gods of Heaven, establishing and expanding the magical circle of the celestial empire. Such idea is embodied by the sovereign, the lugal in Zuism, whose duty is to commune directly with God on behalf of the entire reign, functioning as the latter’s axis mundi and antenna, channelling the ideas for the realisation of the divine city and its empire.29

According to the scholar Daniele Perra, who writes in the wake of the Fourth Political Theory opened by the Russian Eurasianist philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, the departure of mankind from the God of the celestial pole has broken the axis of conjunction between Heaven and Earth, the way for vertical ascension towards Heaven and horizontal expansion of its order, giving way to the loss of truth and trust, the disruption of societies into anomic and atomised individuals, the generation of beings in violence and their destination to wicked and egoistic existences. The empire tends to the a supreme idea, the idea of God, which is realised in shared, communal forms of human life, in which the individual becomes aware of his worth through the sense of actively belonging to a community that is at one time spiritual and political. The hierarchic structuration of society (the three classes mentioned in the foregoing parts of the present essay) in a celestial empire, gives to all the levels of society the sense of participating in a higher divine order, and therefore value, meaning and dignity—contrariwise to what happens in modern atomised and degenerate Western societies, where power is represented by anomic entities whose only aim is financial profit. Indeed, the imperial idea is diametrically opposite to the worldview of the modern era, and of the Western world, which revolves around the concept of an anomic, atomic, uprooted individual, forged by Christian alienation, the Protestant Reformation and the bourgeois revolutions of the late 18th century. The empire is therefore the instrument for the liberation of mankind from wickedness (which is not part of the human essence, as maintained by the Christian doctrine); mankind’s liberation from unholy degenerating societies which have lost the link with Heaven; mankind’s spiritual redemption. There is no distinction between the city (i.e. civilisation) of God and the city of man. Freedom, in the society of a celestial empire, is trust towards the divine order of Heaven, of God-as-Time-Being, and its earthly channel, the sovereign and the forefather.30

Perra writes that the project of a celestial empire may be realised only by rejecting the idea of a linear progress of time, typical of Christianity and modernity, recovering the ancient conception of a circular time, which is the same order of the circular Heaven. An is indeed the root of the Latin annus, the “year”; An is God-as-Time, and thus God-as-Year. The supreme God of the celestial pole is time, and is the cycle of the year. Time “has to be interpreted as a divine manifestation”, a cyclical manifestation of the eternal source, which is therefore reversible, as it may flow both forward and backward. The return to the celestial empire, the project of Zuism, the return to An, is therefore a return to the moment when mankind “sublimated itself by sharing the eternal time of God”. The north celestial pole is, in the studies of the Dutch scholar Herman Wirth, “the point wherefrom the rays of civilisation spread towards the south of the world”, as the original Arctic mankind lived a direct cosmic-ecstatic experience of the Divine, of the divine light of the God-Year represented by the rhythm of the sun. Living within pristine time, always identical to itself, original mankind did not experience distinction between the created and the uncreated, being and thought.31

In the words of Wirth himself, according to a translation by Dugin:32

The sacred meaning of the Year is completely unknown to the modern, city-dwelling man. For him the year is only an abstract, temporal understanding in no way different from all other intervals of time along which modern “socio-economic” life operates. The year is known to him only on the calendar, in business records, and wardrobe changes. The modern urban man is no longer in step with the rhythm of creation. His encounter with the God-Year in nature occurs only sporadically, during vacations or natural disasters. In order to return to the experience of the Year, the modern man must “recover” from his civilized existence that is separated from the experience of being. As the pace of work and life is becoming faster, even the gap with the more human Year, with the cycle of man’s Destiny-Life, is increasing. In need of “recovering” are none other than those “social” people who, freed from all the natural laws of the God-Year, turn night into day, and day into night, and make “optimal use of time” while they are in fact killing time. The God-Year in nature refreshed men, but they can no longer find an inner path to it. If they understood its very meaning, they would have never set off in mad pursuit of Mammon, making money into a goal of life; they would have not started believing that senseless industrialization and the enlargement of cities is inevitable; and they would not be mired in such deep materialism that seals the poverty, weakness, and nothingness of their soul, the soul of “modern humanity”. The main reason for all ills is modern men’s fall from the eternal rhythm of the God-Year. They themselves do not live, but are lived by something extraneous, something alien. They rot in their bodies and souls and grow old even in youth.

The Hawk Lady, an artwork by Dragoš Kalajić, a Serbian philosopher and artist whose style is called “Hyperborean realism” and represents the essential forms of the original experience of an enlightened Arctic mankind. Here, the circle represents the cyclical time of the God-Year, and there is an eagle, symbol of heavenly wisdom (𒍪 zu) and spiritual ascension (Parpola 1993, p. 198, n. 143).
© Courtesy of

About the worldview of the original Arctic mankind, and its civilisation which is the Hyperborea (i.e. “Over-the-North”), which consisted in the immediate experience of An, of pure Time-Being, Dugin writes:33

The whole world was permeated  with divine energies, and people themselves were seen as children of the Sun, descendants of gods, as angelic, supreme beings professing a particular world view, a God-worldview, or Gottesweltanschauung. […] They worshipped the One World imbued with the presence of the One God whose signs of manifestation changed, unfolding in time and space, but while remaining essentially the same, the Self. […] [Wirth] believed that the great sacred formula lying at the heart of polar civilization was not simply a description of the external world, but magical thought itself given flesh. “God creates thinking”, Wirth quotes the famous phrase of an Icelandic runic song. Knowledge is Being, both coinciding and each having no right to eminency.

This immediate experience of An is the root of Dugin’s reading of the Dasein (“Therebeing”), the logical power to put order into the Chaos of primordial matter, institutionalising time and creating organised space, handling the weapon of the name-giving Word to establish measures (me34) of things. It is what Dugin calls the original political (from politus, politicus, which originally meant “clean, cleansing”, at the same time referring to the divinely ordered city35) ontological topography.36 Zuism is meant to be a channel for this return to the God-as-Sky-as-Time-as-Being, for the re-establishment of the holy circle of the divine city and its empire, of the empire of the celestial Hyperborea.

This image represents Indara (Indo-European god of thunder, corresponding to Enlil as Ishkur) slaying the Dragon, in a Hittite seal of 2000 BCE. Indara, with the astral square (attribute of Enki) on his head and holding an axe or carpenter’s square in his right hand, symbolises the power to make order out of chaos, the Dragon, symbol of primordial undeterminacy which at the same time is infinite potentiality, by channelling and applying the creative craft from Heaven. He is therefore an image of the cosmic sovereign.

Ansbrandt of Reykjavík, October 2018

The article is also availabe in PDF and on Academia

CC BY-SA 3.0, except for Dragoš Kalajić’s artwork


1. In Germanic European folklore, the Little Dipper is often defined as the Woman’s Wagon, while the Big Dipper as the Man’s Wagon (or Odin’s Wagon). For more, see: Hinckley Allen, Richard (1963). “Ursa Major, the Great Bear”. Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning. Dover Publications.

2. Mander 2011, p. 16.

3. The Lil 𒆤 is the “Breath”, the “Spirit”, the Logos, thus the magical enlightening “Word” (Utu 𒌓; Latin Oratio) begetting, shaping and linking all things, which is also the human power of “naming” entities, thus shaping their fate. See: Mander 2011, p. 6. It is the equivalent of both 理 (“Reason”, Latin Ratio) and 氣 (“psychophysical stuff”) in Chinese. See: Ansbrandt 2018b, pp. 5–6.

4. The triune supreme God of Heaven and its astral connections are well explained throughout: Ansbrandt 2018a & 2018b.

5. Duval 1989, passim. In late British mythology, in the Arthurian Cycle, the supreme person is Uther Pendragon while the second person is the son Arthur (the “Bear”).

6. Didier 2009, passim. Particular Chinese religions present peculiar formulations of the trinity of God. For instance, Taoism represents it as the 三清 Sānqīng, the “Three Purities”.

7. Van den Dungen 2002, passim.

8. Dumézil 1973, passim.

9. Dumézil 1941, passim. The Hellenic equivalents are Zeus Pater, Ares, while the third had no univocal equivalent; in the older tradition the triad was rather OuranosKhronos, Zeus (“Day”) and Poseidon (the “Lord of the Earth”).

10. Kushnir 2016, p. 40, where the three aspects of God (Rod in Slavic Rodnovery) and the three colours (white, red and black) are also associated to the three aspects of reality: Prav, Yav and Nav.

11. Achuthananda Swami 2018, p. 22. In Hinduism, the original trinity has been variously reformulated throughout history. The well-known modern trinity is composed of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.

12. Van den Dungen 2002, passim.

13. Mander 2011, p. 6.

14. De Benoist 2002, passim.

15. Cf. the Norse poem Rígsþula of the Edda, but the three colours are well documented in other literature about the Indo-Europeans. Also see: Kushnir 2016, p. 40.

16. Ansbrandt 2018a, pp. 4–5; Ansbrandt 2018b, p. 10 ff.

17. Ansbrandt 2018b, p. 2. 天门 Tiānmén, the “Gate of Heaven”, in Chinese thought.

18. Ibidem, p. 5.

19. Mander 2011, pp. 12­–15.

20. Ibidem, pp. 5­–6.

21. Ansbrandt 2018b, p. 6.

22. These are among the critiques to Christianity moved by Porphyry of Tyre (233/234–305 CE) in his Against the Christians (Contra Christianos).

23. Littlewood & Dein 2013, passim.

24. Ansbrandt 2018a, p. 3; Ansbrandt 2018b, pp. 5–6. 天地 Tiāndì (“Heaven–Earth”) in Chinese thought.

25. Ansbrandt 2018a, p. 10; Mander 2011, p. 14. In Chinese, the 禮 lǐ and 祖 , “rites” and “ancestral patterns”, and the latters’ names and thus destinies, 名 míng and 命 mìng.

26. Littlewood & Dein 2013, passim.

27. Ibidem.

28. An is Time and is Being, is Time-Being. It is worthwhile to note how in the ancient Greco-Roman tradition Ouranos/Uranus (“Heaven”, intended as the space of the vault of the sky) and Chronus/Kronos or Saturn (“Time”) represent God as Space-Time, while Zeus/Deus (from the Indo-European Dyeus; “Heaven”, but also “Day”) represents God as the most immediate Being from human perspective, thus the Day and the Year.

29. Perra 2017, passim; Mander 2011, p. 18. Regarding the words “empire” and “emperor”, it is worthwhile to note that their pristine meaning is the same as “interpreting” and “interpreter”, as witnessed by etymology. The emperor is one who “brings forth/arranges from within” (literal meaning of the Latin imperō, imperāre, a variation of in+‎parō, parāre, which also has the meaning of “learning”), the same as an interpreter, one who “fathers/makes from within” (the Latin verb interpretor, interpretārī). For these etymologies see: Zeizlindt 2018, p. 144, n. 493.

30. Perra 2017, passim.

31. Ibidem.

32. Dugin 2008, passim.

33. Ibidem.

34. Mos, mores, meaning “customs” or “morality” in Latin, even related to “man”, “mind” and “medium/middle”, probably come from the same root as the Sumerian me. See: Pokorny 1959, pp. 703–706 ff: *me-, *mo-, *met-, *med-; pp. 726–728: *men-.

35. Pokorny 1959, p. 798 ff: *pel-, *pelə-, *plē-.

36. Zeizlindt 2018, p. 155.


De civitate Caeli – The civilisation of Heaven

The essay puts Zuism in dialogue with some of the most important currents of contemporary philosophical enquiry. It shows the compatibility of the Zuist project with the Eurasianist Fourth Political Theory of Aleksandr Dugin, and the affinity of Zuism with broader Eurasian religion, especially Chinese religion; then it puts forward a criticism of Christianity and Sitchinianism, both proven as wrong and misleading forms of thought. Endly, the essay introduces the Zuist projects for new social structures.

Drawing by the Serbian artist Dragoš Kalajić, representing ⨁ one of the many variations of the symbol of Hyperborea, the God of Heaven (𒀭 An) at the ecliptic north pole, with an eagle head. In Zuism, the eagle is a symbol of heavenly wisdom (𒍪 zu), of the wisemen who know Heaven (the eagle-faced apkallu; Parpola 1993, p. 167, n. 31), and of Anzu, whom is the same as the Iranic Simurgh, the bird of the north pole. The eagle, reputed to be able to gaze directly at the Sun, represents the part of the soul which strives to ascend to Heaven, opposed to the snake, the part of the soul which longs for the Earth (Parpola 1993, p. 198, n. 143).
© Courtesy of


Zuism proposes itself as a radical transformation of society, in a period when people in the West are increasingly challenging the authority of traditional institutions and feeling the need for a break with the stagnant order of the world, the collapsing Anglo-American empire, represented by Christianity and the entire construction of the Judeo-Christian civilisation, which does not represent the true roots of Europe. The Indo-Europeans are the true roots of Europe.1

Zuism inscribes itself among the attempts to change the stagnant present through the reactualisation of past structures of thought, identity and socialisation. It opens the way for the hoisting of a new axis mundi, a new configuration of the Logos, a new civilising centre where Heaven will meet the Earth, and wherein a new mankind will gather.

As such, Zuism is particularly apt for fulfilling the Fourth Political Theory elaborated by the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, an open yard2 for a “new institutionalisation of the world”.

The architecture of the postmodern world is completely fragmented, perverse and confused. It is a labyrinth without an exit, as folded and twisted as a Moebius strip. The Logos, which was the guarantor of strictness and order, serves here instead to grant curvature and crookedness, being used to preserve the impassability of the ontological border with nothing from the eventual and inevitable trespassers seeking to escape into the beyond. (Dugin 2012, p. 209)

Let the buffoonery of postmodernism have its turn; let it erode definite paradigms, the ego, super-ego and Logos; […] let nothing carry along in itself the substance of the world — then secret doors will open, and ancient, eternal, ontological archetypes will come to the surface and, in a frightful way, will put an end to the game. (Dugin 2012, pp. 97-98)

The world around us becomes what it is by the fundamental action of presencing accomplished by the mind. When the mind sleeps, reality lacks the sense of present experience. It is fully immersed in a continuous dream. The world is created by time, and time, in its turn, is the manifestation of self-aware subjectivity, an intrasubjectivity. […] Time is that which is inside us, and what makes us who we are. Time is man’s ultimate identity. (Dugin 2012, p. 159)

The Fourth Political Theory has opened a unique perspective: if we comprehend the principle of the reversibility of time, we are not only able to compose the project of a future society, but we will also be able to compose a whole range of projects of different future societies, thus we would be able to suggest some non-linear strategies for a new institutionalisation of the world. (Dugin 2012, p. 70)

The Fourth Political Theory is so called because its purpose is to represent a fourth way overcoming the three political theories which shaped modernity—fascism, communism and liberalism—among which the latter has apparently triumphed in the contemporary, degenerating postmodern world. The number four is also “the sign of Jupiter, the planet of order and monarchy. It is an Indo-European, patriarchal symbol of the God of Heaven—Dyaus, Deus, Zeus”,3 the Zuists’ An or Dingir, the father of the fixed ecliptic north pole winded by the constellation Draco,4 of the Hyperborea.5 Another symbol used by Dugin is the eight-arrows star, which derives directly from our symbol of the “Gate of God” (𒆍𒀭𒊏 Ka.dingir.ra in Sumerian, Babilu in Akkadian), the ancient Sumerian grapheme An or Dingir itself, representing the ecliptic north pole from which everything emanates à 𒀭.6 It is “the compass, something that provides orientation, introducing order in the seemingly chaotic space, the geometric symbol of the universe”. It is a symbol of “stars”, that is to say God, the gods and men as gods.7

Dugin appeals to the shared effort of European and Asian intellectuals who perceive the “eschatological tension of the present time”, for the formulation of the Fourth Political Theory,8 which he himself characterises as a “Fourth Nomos of the Earth”, using Carl Schmitt’s terminology; a coalescence of political science, political theology, geopolitics and a “new model of the political organisation of space”.9 In Schmitt, a “nomos of the Earth” is an Ordnung, “ordering”, as well as an Ortung, a “localisation”. Unifying these in a single word, Dugin develops the concept of Dasein (“Therebeing”) inherited from Martin Heidegger:

[…] We may propose to consider Heidegger’s Dasein as the subject of the Fourth Political Theory. Dasein is described in Heidegger’s philosophy at length through its existential structure, which makes it possible to build a complex, holistic model based on it, the development of which will lead to, for instance, a new understanding of politics. […] If the subject is Dasein, then the Fourth Political Theory would constitute a fundamental ontological structure that is developed on the basis of existential anthropology. (Dugin 2012, pp. 40-41)

In Dugin, the Dasein is  “a new conception of the Logos and of humanity that works as the magnetic centre of the Fourth Political Theory”, “a fundamental ontological theory with at its core the awareness of the truth of Being: ‘there’ (da) and ‘be’ (sein) is a gesture, an indication of where the fountain of Being is located”.10

Zuism, represented by the Gate of God, by the gate of the fixed ecliptic north pole of Heaven, reproduced on Earth by the Zuist temple,11 wants to be a cradle for the new Dasein, for the new, re-ordered mankind, a pole of irradiation for a new civilisation to align the Earth with Heaven. According to Dugin, the nature of Dasein is being “intween/intwixt” (inzwischen);12 in our case it represents mankind which occupies its due position between Heaven and Earth, linking Heaven and Earth. Zuism, therefore, proposes itself as a “rectification”, a new orthodoxy, a new “right”, that is to say a new alignment with the pole of Heaven, for the world and for Europe in particular.13

Zuism as a new centre, and Zuist temples as its many centres, may be compared to the Heideggerian concept of Ort, a German word originally meaning the “tip of the spear”, which is used to render the Latin word “locus”; the theurgical establishment of “an ordered space, centre of gravitation and irradiation of activity”.14 In his essay entitled Georg Trakl. Eine Erörterung seines Gedichtes (1953), Heidegger says:

All the forces of the spear converge into its tip. The Ort gathers by attracting towards itself, as it is the highest and most extreme point. By bringing together, it transfixes and permeates everything. The Ort, as that which unites, draws to itself and keeps what it has drawn to itself. It does not keep what it has drawn to itself in the manner of a casket, but in order to integrate it within its own light, thereby giving it the ability to unfold according to its own true being.15

According to a reading of Dugin’s thought, “time coagulates around Dasein into different complexes, establishing topographies in which concepts combine and recombine in a nonlinear and reversible way. Concepts from the past may be reëvoked, providing the bases for the composition of projects for the future and the strategies for their institutionalisation”.16

Zuism is otherwise describable as Dugin’s Ereignis, the “event” of the return of Being, the “central axis threading everything around itself”, politics, theology and mythology; “the triumphant return of Being, at the exact moment when mankind forgets about it, once and for all”.17 When Dasein manifests in the Ereignis, it institutionalises time; time is at the same time a function of Dasein and becomes institutionalised in it. Dugin compares it to Gilbert Durand’s topographical Traiectum, the crossroads which “institutionalise time”.18

Zuism as the cradle for Dasein is therefore a new institutionalisation of space-time, or time-space. It establishes anew what Dugin calls the “original political ontological topography”, that is “the fundamental structure of any political entity and experience”.19


Dugin calls for a recourse to archaic and Eastern theologico-mystical systems to trigger a reconfiguration of the Logos and the rise of a new civilisation, since they preserve the “real form” of the original knowledge about the how to institutionalise the world.20

[…] The theology of monotheistic religions, which at one time displaced other sacred cultures, will not be the ultimate truth […]. Theoretically, nothing limits the possibilities for an in-depth readdressing of the ancient archaic values, which can take their place in the new ideological construction, upon being adequately recognised and understood. […] Not only the highest supra-mental symbols of faith can be taken on board once again as a new shield […]. If we reject the idea of progress that is inherent in modernity […], then all that is ancient gains value and credibility for us simply by virtue of the fact that it is ancient. […] “Ancient” means good, and the more ancient — the better. Of all creations, Heaven is the most ancient one. The carriers of the Fourth Political Theory must strive toward rediscovering it in the near future. (Dugin 2012, pp. 27–28)

Among Eastern cultures, and especially among the living great traditions, Zuism shares many fundamental structural ideas with Chinese religion. Both these religious cultures are characterised by a scientific outlook: Both Sumerian and Chinese religion are not blind faith in a supernatural, otherworldly reality, but rather are based on the observation of Heaven, of natural phenomena, and on techniques meant to regulate human activity in accordance with the order of Heaven. They are scientific, thisworldly religions whose aim is to create Heaven on Earth.

This similarity is due to the common origin of Sumerian and Chinese religious cultures. John C. Didier finds a common “center-plus-agency structure” that “ancient proto-Chinese and Chinese may have inherited from a transmitted Sumerian-Babylonian religion”.21 This transmission may have occurred from the 4th millennium BC onwards, via Indo-European peoples, and such spiritual knowledge is ultimately shared by a common pan-Eurasian religion,22 whose most ancient core is found in the myths of Siberia.23

The supreme God of Heaven, the ecliptic north pole, which is “the creative source of all energy and thus also the patriarch of the entire cosmos”, with the Dipper constellations revolving around it representing its offspring which “helps as an agent to produce and/or govern further evolutionary developments of the cosmos”,24 is the same An or Dingir 𒀭 (with his offspring Enlil and Marduk-Jupiter representing his active, moving emanation) of Sumerian-Mesopotamian religious culture, Dyeus (called Deus Pater by the Latins, later contracted as “Jupiter”, Zeus by the Greeks) of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and Dīng 口, 帝 (“Deity”) or Tiān 天 (“Heaven”) of Chinese religious culture.25 Other symbols of the God of Heaven in these cultures are the cross potent and the swastika (which in Sanskrit means “well-being”, “it is the good”).26

In all these cultures, the vault of Heaven, revolving around the centre, the ecliptic north pole identified as the heart of the God of Heaven coiled by the constellation Draco, is divided into three concentric bands of constellations, associated with the God of Heaven itself and its two main manifestations. In Sumerian religious culture the band closer to the centre is the “Path of Enlil”, the middle band is the “Path of An”, and the farther band is the “Path of Enki”, the god of humanity.27

Besides An, all the other main concepts of Sumerian-Mesopotamian religion find equivalents in Chinese and broader Eurasian religion. Ki 𒆠 (“Earth”) is the same as the Chinese 地 Dì, and the compound Anki 𒀭𒆠 (“Heaven-Earth”), signifying the “cosmos”, the ordered world when Heaven and Earth are in harmony,28 is the same as the Chinese concept of 天地 Tiāndì.

The Sumerian equivalent of the Hellenic concept of Logos, the the Latin Ratio and Oratio—the structural “order” of the universe emanated by the supreme God of Heaven and the “word” which gives such order—is the Lil29 𒆤 (translatable as “wind”, “air”, “breath” or “spirit”30), also in its personification Enlil (𒂗𒆤, the “Master of Breath”).31 Utu 𒌓, which means both “word” and “Sun”, is the Lil when understood as the divine utterance which has performative, creative power to make order out of chaos—Abzu 𒀊𒍪 (“Deep Water” or “Watery Knowledge”, or “Before Knowledge”) or Engur or Nammu 𒇉, the primordial “Mother”, which is the same as the Chinese Hùndùn 混沌.32 The Lil is what unites Heaven and Earth; it stands between them33 and all things are made of it; it is characterised by movement and expansion.34 From this perspective, the Lil is also comparable to the concept of pneuma. In Chinese religion, its equivalents are 理 (“reason”, “order”, or “pattern”) and 氣, the former defining the structural order of Heaven and the latter defining the energised matter of which all things are made.

The Chinese Li as Logos is reflected in the homophonous lǐ  禮 carrying the meaning of “rite” (even in the Indo-European tradition Ratio and ritus ultimately come from the same root35). In Chinese religious culture, rites are devices for the moralisation, the structuration, of space-time, and consist in the transmission of ancestral forms ( 祖; through the “naming”, 名 míng, and thus the “destination”, 命 mìng, of things).36 The equivalent concept in Sumerian-Mesopotamian religion is me 𒈨 (“measure”, “mean”), which is likely the phonetic root of the Latin concept of mos, mores (“habits”, “morals”).37



Christianity is fundamentally a religion for the slaves, deliberately created to breed and domesticate masses of slaves. In his 1992 work The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama, in the wake of Nietzsche and Hegel, called Christianity “the most prominent ideology of slavery”, a perverse moralism which justifies and glorifies weakness and fault (“turn the other cheek”). At the same time, it postpones its plan of universal equality to an otherworldly future. This results in a rejection of the present world, of thisworldly potentialities, and thus in an alienation of individual intelligences from the present world, and in the fall of the latter into anomy.38

The Bible, in Ephesians 6:5–8, one of its passages about slavery, says:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favour when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

These verses tell about a religion of social and spiritual stagnation, which paralyses the development of humanity preventing any possibility of meritocracy. According to Christianity, people must humbly accept their position in society, as there is no way for them to improve their condition. There is no possibility of perfectibility, in this world. Christianity is what cultivates the Nietzschean “last men”, bereft of any dignity, at the time of what Fukuyama calls the “end of history”, as Christianity, and its ideological spawns (far-fetched mass egalitarianism and liberalism), ultimately smother any possibility of dynamic evolution of humanity and thus mark the deadlock of history.39

Such conception is radically different from that which is found in Chinese religious culture, in which humanity may continuously develop, refine itself through ritual self-cultivation, moralisation of space-time, with the purpose of becoming one with Heaven.40 The same conception shall be recovered from the Sumerian tradition, in Zuism, through the ideas of utu an me.

According to a reading of the history of Western thought, Christianity is also deemed responsible for the concealment of the original meaning of the Logos and for the consequent sclerotisation of thought occurring in Western civilisation.41 Dugin says:

The architecture of the postmodern world is completely fragmented, perverse and confused. It is a labyrinth without an exit, as folded and twisted as a Moebius strip. Logos, which was the guarantor of strictness and order, serves here instead to grant curvature and crookedness, being used to preserve the impassability of the ontological border with nothing from the eventual and inevitable trespassers seeking to escape into the beyond. (Dugin 2009, p. 209)

The sclerotisation of the Logos goes back to “the Christian conception of God as an abstract, otherworldly entity, that is to say, as a transcendent cause that is separated from its creation”, thus external to the universe and to the Logos which informs the universe.42 A further step is Christianity’s reification or objectification of the Logos as one single entity, spatiotemporally confined in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, so that the Logos is ultimately separated from the world and from humanity, which in turn are bereft of any spiritual value.43 Comparing the Logos with Jacques Lacan’s concept of the web of the “Symbolic Order”, it becomes clear that Christianity’s reduction of symbols to one historicised entity results in what Lacanians call “obduracy” or “network sclerosis”: “The network of symbols ceases to be dynamic […] and it protractedly reproduces itself as a machine-like empty shell”.44 The separation of God from the Logos and of the two from lower human reason, results in the explosion of the system into all types of “nonsensicality and madness”.45


Sitchinianism46 or the ancient astronaut theory, which is sadly a popular thought paradigm among contemporary masses, is just the latest spawn of the Christian abstraction of God and objectification of the Logos. The late scholar D. M. Murdock, historian of religion and astrotheology, writes that:

[…] The ancients themselves were quite clear about what it was exactly they were worshipping and fancifully describing in epic poetry. […] For example, the Sumero-Babylonians themselves said that the gods were the planets, not people, and that their stories were myths representing personifications of these bodies. […] They developed over a period of many thousands of years a complex astronomical/astrological system that incorporated the movements and qualities of numerous celestial bodies, which could be called the celestial mythos. (Murdock 2014, passim)

This astral religion served to regulate life on Earth according to the patterning of Heaven. Murdock proposes that Sitchinianism may have been deliberately spread “by the same type of motivation that produced the Bible, a chronicle largely consisting of the plagiarized myths of other cultures that were reconstituted as humans of a particular ethnicity”.47

According to Murdock:

[…] The Anunnaki […] are not “people”, human or otherwise. The Anunnaki, in general, represent the seven nether spheres and guardians of the seven gates through which the sun of God passes into the netherworld or darkness. They are also the tutelary spirits of the earth. […] The ancients were not so dumb that they mistook planets for people, even though they personified those planets and, where the knowledge or gnosis of the mythos was lost, they hoped for the incarnation, or the carnalization or appearance of a god. (Murdock 2014, passim)

Quoting Barbara G. Walker, Murdock says:

A generally accepted view of the universe in antiquity was the doctrine of the planetary spheres, conceived as great crystal domes or inverted bowls nested inside one another over the earth, turning independently of one another at various rates, and emitting the “music of the spheres” with their motions. The theory was evolved to explain the apparently erratic movement of planets against the background of the fixed stars. Reading from the innermost sphere outward, arranging them according to the days of the week, they were the spheres of the moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, and the sun. Outermost was the eight sphere, the Empyrean, the home of fixed spheres and the ultimate God: the highest heaven. As a corollary to this theory, it was also assumed that there were seven nether spheres descending under the earth: the seven hells to which Dumuzi and Inanna (or Tammuz and Ishtar) journeyed; whose seven gates were guarded by the seven Anunnaki or Maskim, the nether counterparts of the planetary spirits. According to an Akkadian magic tablet, “They proceed from the ocean depths, from the hidden retreat”. From the ancient idea of the seven nether spheres, Dante took his vision of the descending circles of hell. (Murdock 2014 quoting Walker 201348)

Dragoš Kalajić’s artwork representing the seven stars of the Big Dipper, or Great Chariot, the constellation which revolves around the north pole of Heaven. In the traditions of all Eurasia, including Mesopotamia, the Big Dipper is associated with the utmost God of Heaven, specifically as its operative power. Each of its seven stars represents one of the seven planets near the earth: The Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The symbolism of the number seven in many Eurasian traditions originates from the Big Dipper (Didier 2009, vol. I, p. 113).
© Courtesy of


Poster by the Chaldean artist Amer Hanna Fatuhi. The Mesopotamian temple (in the poster the Etemenanki, “Temple of the Foundations of Heaven and Earth”), functions as the centre of an ordered world.
© Courtesy of

Zuism’s aim is to establish a new social structure. Temples (é 𒂍) in Sumer and broader Mesopotamia were economic powerhouses, centres of business and industry. As written by Leslie A. White, relying largely upon the studies of V. Gordon Childe, Mesopotamian temples had waged workers including bakers, brewers, spinners, smiths and farmers, and obviously the clergy who supervised them. The temples also functioned as banks: “The early temple archives record the god’s loan of seed or plow animals to cultivators, the fields he has let to tenants, wages paid to […] employees […]. The god is the richest member of the community”.49

The Igibi Bank, active around 575 BCE, “acted as a buying agent for clients, loaned on crops, attaching them in advance; loaned on signatures and on objects deposited, and received deposits on which it paid interest”. White writes that the contract as a legal device for business transaction was invented by the Mesopotamian temple system; it was used in the rental of fields, houses, working animals and vehicles.50 As in this testimony:

Warad-Ilisch […] has received from the sun-priestess Iltani, one shekel of silver by the Sun God’s balance. This sum is to be used to buy sesame. At the time of the sesame-harvest, he will repay in sesame, at the current price, to the bearer of this document. (White 1959, pp. 326–327, quoting the Encyclopædia Britannica51)

Zuist temples shall recover the functions that temples had in ancient Mesopotamia. In a 2016 article, Izabella Kaminska writes about how “the emergence of civilised states such as Sumer was closely connected to the role temples played in standardising, clearing and redistributing value in society. Temple authorities, the theory states, kept account of the assets and liabilities of each individual in a centralised manner, meaning citizens could claim as many goods from the temple store as the temple records permitted. This was often based on the amount of provable work they had done. Tangible coins were thus unnecessary. The accounting system was ubiquitous in society and trusted”.52

Sumer was an “industrial-religious accounting complex” in which land was considered property of the gods and not of individuals or families, so that this spurred “non-rivalrous collaboration” for cultivation and settlement. At the same time, church, bank and state were separated, as it was the king (lugal) who authorised and oversaw the bala (“exchange”), the taxation system by which the temples collected goods and surplus and conveyed them into welfare and development projects. Through this temple-state system, people “gave up their nomadic/predatory/hunter-gatherer existence” as they “were provided with a neutral territory and common religious purpose, something which in turn gave them an excuse to opt into a mutually beneficial subsidisation platform of their own accord”.53

Amagi 𒂼𒄄 or amargi 𒂼𒅈𒄄, literally “return to the mother”, which became a figure of speech for “freedom”, implies the restoration of persons and properties to their original status, implying the cancellation of debts and obligations. This practice shall be restored by Zuism, starting from the redistribution of collected taxes and the use of the surplus for the projects of the community.


Sumerian religious ministers were called en 𒂗, ensi 𒑐𒋼𒋛, or lugal 𒈗, with the latter occupying the highest position in the hierarchy. They were at the same time the political leaders: The ensi (“priests”) were the leaders of individual city-states while the lugal led confederations of many cities, or maybe the whole Sumer. The lugal, which literally means “great man”, likely also had military functions, while the ensi dealt with internal affairs.54

Below the en there were various male and female assisting figures in the temple hierarchy. The upper rank  included the lagar, the eresh-digir or nin (“priestess”, who had an important role and is sometimes considered as the female equivalent of the en), the lu-mah and the egi-zi.55 The second rank included cultic officiants and specialists in charge of the purification of the holy spaces and of the care of the statues and liturgical objects, namely the gudu, the shita, the nu-esh, the a-tu, the sanga, the susbu and the ishib.56 The fourth rank included liturgical cantors and musicians, nar and gala.57 The fourth and lower rank of the temple functionaries were the female voters, nu-gig or lukur.58

In Zuism it would be possible either to reinstitute this system in its entirety, or to establish a new enhood adapted to the context of contemporary Europe, to meet the need for a reformation and resacralisation of Europe. What is proposed by the present essay is a threefold enhood that would reflect the three forms of the supreme God of Heaven in Sumerian theology (An itself, Enlil and Enki), their associated three concentric bands of the starry sky spinning umbe the ecliptic north pole,59 and the three functional classes of traditional Indo-European societies as studied by Georges Dumézil.60 It is indeed possible to draw a parallel between the utmost trinity of Heaven of Sumerian theology, its equivalents in other Eurasian cultures (for instance the Germanic trinity: Odin, his active emanation Thor, and Frey), and the three functions studied by Dumézil.

Representation of the fixed north ecliptic pole (NEP) and the moving north celestial pole (NCP), which is centred in α Ursae Minoris (Polaris) in our epoch. Note that the two Little and Big Chariot (or Little and Big Dipper) are represented in the four phases of their rotation around it, imagining the blue ones as the current phase. The red Draco, otherwise, is not represented in its rotation.
This configuration of the northern culmen of the sky is known in many Eurasian religious cultures as representing the physical manifestation of the supreme God of Heaven, in its quiescent (NEP) and active (NCP) form. The seven stars of the Chariots are also regarded as the operative power of the God of Heaven, and they are reflected in the seven planets. In the Mesopotamian tradition the Dippers are also represented as the Bull of Heaven (Didier 2009, Vol. I, pp. 113–119).

The three orders of enhood would articulate as follows:

The lugal of An-Enlil — Associated with the inner band of the sky closer to the ecliptic north pole in Draco, the “Path of Enlil”, he would represent the transcendently active power of Heaven. That is to say, he would represent both the fixed, “transcendental”, ecliptic north pole in Draco (NEP in the image), thus An in potentiality, and the moving, “active”, celestial north pole (NCP), that is to say Enlil, the Logos, both Ratio and Oratio.61 In many Eurasian traditions, indeed, the sacerdotal class, which has the leading function in society, is associated with the power of the Dragon.62

Le Dragon ou ses hypostases sont détenteurs d’un savoir sacré, d’un savoir surnaturel, d’un don de prophétie ou de talents de magiciens. Ce sont autant de qualités qui relèvent de la première fonction. Y aurait-il donc un rapport entre le Dragon et les prêtres? Aussi étonnant que cela puisse paraître, c’est le cas. (Papillon 2005, p. 50)

The Zuist lugal would be the highest sacerdotal rank like the Vedic brāhmaṇa associated with Varuna or the jarl of the Norse Rigsthula, associated with Odin—divine equivalents of An. He would embody divine sovereignty, intimate knowledge of Heaven, and juridical power.63 His role would be to “architect”, to create and arrange ideas, tools of knowledge, to devise how to bring the laws of Heaven down to Earth. He would be the supreme leader of the Zuist Church, embodiment of the entire religious network. Otherwise, the Zuist Church might be organised in a synodal rather than monocratic structure, with many lugal, one for each nation.

The Zuist lugal would represent, at the same time, military qualities like the ancient Sumerian lugal, thus reconciling the Eurasian military function (the Vedic kṣatriya associated with Mitra or the Norse karl associated with Thor, the “Thunder”—divine equivalents of Enlil)64 with the sacerdotal one. However, his military function would be normally limited to the ideal plane. His attire would be of the colours associated with the inner sky in the Mesopotamian tradition: Luludanitu, that is to say the ensemble of red, white and black, representing the “threefoldness withheld in potence in the transcendent supreme God”.65

The en(s) of An-Inanna — They would be many, assigned to different territorial jurisdictions, and would be associated with the middle band of the sky, the “Path of An” which has its starting point in Venus, which is Inanna 𒈹, the “Lady of Heaven” and goddess of war.66 They would represent the twoth function of Indo-European trifunctionalism, the military one, fully put into practice; the descent of the divine power of Heaven into matter. From this vision comes the importance of the female component, Inanna, representing matter which provides the foundation for the establishment of the heavenly laws; the ens of An-Inanna might have an actual female counterpart, a wife, the “nin of An-Inanna”. Their power would thus be executive,67 their role being to “engineer”, to actualise the laws uttered by the lugal in given different contexts and to act as vicars of the lugal in different contexts. Their attire would be blue, the colour associated with the middle sky and with Inanna.68

The en of An-Enki — They would be associated with the outer band of the sky farther from the ecliptic north pole in Draco, the “Path of Enki”.69 Enki 𒂗𒆠 means the “Master of the Earth”,70 and his ens would act as those who deal directly with the local affairs of the Zuist Church. They would be the leaders of local Zuist communities, elected by them, and would represent their community in front of the higher ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. They would represent the productive class of craftsmen, herders and farmers of Indo-European trifunctionalism, the Vedic vaiśya associated with Aryaman or the Norse thræll associated with Ingfrey, the “Lord of Generation/Production”—divine equivalent of Enki.71 Their attire would be green, the colour associated with the outer sky in the Mesopotamian tradition.72

Left to right: The en of An-Enki clad in green; the en of An-Inanna clad in blue; and the lugal of An-Enlil, clad in white with red and black elements.

Ansbrandt of Reykjavík, July 2018

The article is also availabe in PDF and on Academia

CC BY-SA 3.0, except for Dragoš Kalajić’s and Amer Fatuhi’s artworks


1. Dugin (2016b).

2. Dugin (2012), p. 13: “[…] This is not dogma, nor a complete system, nor a finished project. This is an invitation to political creativity, a statement of intuitions and conjectures, an analysis of new conditions, and an attempt to reconsider the past. The Fourth Political Theory is not the work of a single author, but is rather a trend comprising a wide spectrum of ideas, researches, analyses, prognoses, and projects. Anyone thinking in this vein can contribute his own ideas. As such, more and more intellectuals, philosophers, historians, scientists, scholars, and thinkers will respond to this call”.

3. Dugin (2017).

4. Ansbrandt (2018b), p. 1.

5. Dugin (2016a).

6. Zeizlindt (2018), p. 53. The Chinese equivalent concept, relevant for the second chapter of the present essay, is 天门 Tiānmén, the “Gate of Heaven”.

7. Nad (2014).

8. Dugin (2012), p. 31.

9. Ibid., pp. 35 & 43.

10. Zeizlindt (2018), p. 145; Dugin (2012), p. 54.

11. Ansbrandt (2018a).

12. Dugin (2012), pp. 189–190.

13. About the original meaning of “orthodoxy”, and orthotes (ὀρθότης), as the “right” way of doing things, that is to say “rightly” in alignment with the God of Heaven (Dyeus, An), see: Zeizlindt (2018), p. 45 ff about the “ar root”; pp. 81–93 about the original, pristine conception of God/Heaven.

14. Zeizlindt (2018), p. 146.

15. Ibid., p. 111.

16. Ibid., p. 45.

17. Zeizlindt (2018), p. 154–155; Dugin (2012), p. 29.

18. Dugin (2012), p. 70.

19. Zeizlindt (2018), p. 155.

20. Dugin (2012), p. 210.

21. Didier (2009), vol. I, p. ix.

22. Ibid., vol. III, p. 257 ff.

23. Ibid., vol. III, p. 264.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., vol. III, pp. 260–263.

26. Ibid., vol. III, p. 268.

27. Ibid., vol. III, p. 266.

28. Kramer (1956), pp. 46–47.

29. Murdock (2014), passim.

30. Kramer (1956), p. 47.

31. Hillar (2012), p. 274; Mander (2011), p. 6: Mander explains that Enlil is the Logos, the Universal Intellect, the Anima Mundi which descends from it, the God of the Gods.

32. Ansbrandt (2018b), p. 6, note 33; Zeizlindt (2018), p. 56: Hundun is “the inchoate state of things and yet a receptacle for any possibility”.

33. Hillar (2012), p. 274.

34. Kramer (1956), p. 47.

35. Zeizlindt (2018), p. 45 ff.

36. Ibid., pp. 43 ff & 59 ff.

37. Ibid., p. 51.

38. Ibid., p. 34.

39. Ibid., pp. 18 ff & 26 ff.

40. Ibid., pp. 53 ff & 66 ff.

41. Ibid., p. 23 ff.

42. Ibid., p. 21.

43. Ibid., pp. 24–25.

44. Ibid., p. 25.

45. Ibid., p. 93.

46. “Sitchinianism” comes from the name of the most known proponent of the misleading theory, the Azerbaijani economist Zecharia Sitchin.

47. Murdock (2014), passim.

48. The quote is entirely from Walker, Barbara G. (2013). The Woman’s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects. Harper Collins. p. 13.

49. White (1959), pp. 326–327.

50. Ibid.

51. “History of Banking”. Encyclopædia Britannica, 14th ed., vol. 3. 1929. p. 67.

52. Kaminska (2016), passim.

53. Ibid.

54. Crawford (2013), p. 283.

55. Ibid., p. 248.

56. Ibid., pp. 262–263.

57. Ibid., pp. 264–265.

58. Ibid., p. 266.

59. Ansbrandt (2018b), pp. 1–5.

60. The theory of a tripartite ideology among the early Indo-Europeans, which was established in all the civilisations they founded, was first put forward by Georges Dumézil in Flamen-Brahman (1929) and Mitra-Varuna (1940), and later formalised in Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus (1941–1948) and L’Idéologie tripartite des Indo-Européens (1958).

61. Ansbrandt (2018b), pp. 1–5. Note the important distinction between “ecliptic north pole” and “celestial north pole”. Also see page 5 of the present essay for the association of the Lil with the Logos and its equivalents in other Eurasian cultures.

62. Papillon (2005), p. 50.

63. Zeizlindt (2018), pp. 169–170.

64. Ibid.

65. Ansbrandt (2018b), p. 4.

66. Ansbrandt (2018b), pp. 4–5.

67. Zeizlindt (2018), pp. 169–170.

68. Ansbrandt (2018b), p. 4.

69. Ansbrandt (2018b), pp. 4–5.

70. Ansbrandt (2018b), p. 3.

71. Zeizlindt (2018), p. 170.

72. Ansbrandt (2018b), p. 4.