De civitate Caeli – The civilisation of Heaven

This text is part of the Zuist Doctrinal Handbook (Zúisk Kenningarbók).

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, with 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.

Zuist Church, 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. Zuist Church (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. Zuist Church (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. Zuist Church (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. Zuist Church (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. Zuist Church (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. Zuist Church (2018b), p. 4.

66. Ibid., pp. 4–5.

67. Zeizlindt (2018), pp. 169–170.

68. Zuist Church (2018b), p. 4.

69. Ibid., pp. 4–5.

70. Ibid., p. 3.

71. Zeizlindt (2018), p. 170.

72. Zuist Church (2018b), p. 4.


0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *