Where people have a common long-term or eternal goal and want to achieve something worthwhile, there always arises the need to set up a more stable, formal structure, that is, to associate themselves in an organization. If such an organization has the advancement of the doctrine of neutral-inclusivity and of neutral-inclusivity itself as its goal, then the initiation and/or coordination of fundamental, neutral-inclusivistic action and of symbolic, neutral-inclusivistic confirmation will somehow constitute its objectives. Everyone who agrees with, or is interested in, these objectives should be able to join an organization of people with the same objectives. Let us call such an organization "a DNI association (of sympathizers)". The sole requirement such a DNI association will have to fulfil is that its existence is not on the whole detrimental to the anabasis, the advance of the neutral-inclusive movement or of neutral-inclusivity. Similarly, the sole requirement an individual person will have to fulfil in order to become a member is that 'er membership is not on the whole detrimental to the anabasis. (Unlike many religious temple societies, veridicalists shall not claim that people are members of their organization solely because they have been forcefully circumcised as a little boy or girl or dipped in or sprinkled with water as an infant or child.)

Now, when someone's applied-for membership of a DNI association is on the whole not detrimental to the aggregate ideal of the DNI, it does not mean that such a person could not be, say, a member of an organization with an incompatible ideology at the same time. It does not follow from the fact that our doctrine is coherent (or minimally incoherent), that the beliefs of all followers of our doctrine will be coherent too (or minimally incoherent). Some may be so undisciplined as to adhere to incompatible doctrines or parts of doctrines. If someone who claims that 'e sympathizes with neutral-inclusivism and veridicalism, sympathizes with extremist, exclusivist or supernaturalist ideas as well, this will certainly in some respect harm the cause of the DNI, but it is then not necessarily the case that 'er membership will have more disadvantages than advantages from the perspective of this cause. However, it seems that in the short term truth would be the value most seriously violated in such a situation. This would probably also be the case, if someone joined a DNI association for purely opportunist reasons. The phenomenon has been well-known throughout history: human beings with little regard for principles or the effects on other human or nonhuman beings join a club which is big, powerful, rich or fashionable and stay with it so long as it remains big, powerful, rich or fashionable. But as soon as another group which used to be small, powerless, poor or unfashionable starts to flourish they do not refrain from changing color and allegiance overnight. A DNI association will have to accept such opportunists nevertheless in the event that their membership serves the neutral-inclusive cause on the whole.

In the long run inconsistent beliefs and opportunism are pernicious to personhood, truth, inclusivity and/or neutrality. That is why an organization that intends to promote all four ultimate ideals of the Ananorm must require more from its members than that they sympathize, or say that they sympathize, with these ideals. Such members should then also be required to be genuine and faithful adherents. This is not something which can be asserted about people who at the same time somehow support, sympathize or work with an organization or group with an ideology offending against the Ananorm. It is even not something which can be asserted about people who did recently somehow support, sympathize or work with such an organization or group. (Recently, for example, in the relative sense that their conversion took less time than the number of years they belonged to exclusivist or suchlike groups, or in the absolute sense that their conversion took less than 2 years or so.) This is not to say, of course, that members of a DNI association would not be genuine and faithful adherents. On the contrary: all of them may be conscientious, nonopportunist members but --and this is what is meant here-- not because of the conditions of membership.

A denominational organization which requires from neutral-inclusivists that they do not, and did not recently, adhere to or perpetuate the influence of incompatible doctrines (or metadoctrines) and that they do not, and did not recently, sympathize or work with groups promoting an incompatible cause, may be called "an anastomosis (of adherents)". An anastomosis --or stomosis for short-- is, as it were, an organizational network of sincere adherents of the DNI. It can be part of a DNI association, but a DNI association cannot be part of an anastomosis. Not only are the conditions of membership of an anastomosis more specific (with an incompatibility and an anti-opportunism clause), the conditions of founding an anastomosis should be more specific too. Because of the special role of truthfulness, sincerity and faithfulness with respect to the doctrine in the anastomotic perspective, an anastomosis should in the first instance unite adherents who speak the same language, for the interpretation of truth and consistence in belief is in practise language-dependent. Thus each anastomosis is to be an anastomosis of the speakers of a particular language in which this Model (or at least the Book of Fundamentals) has been made public. Whereas there may be several DNI associations for one speech community, or one DNI association for several speech communities, there should be not more than one anastomosis for each speech community, and vice versa. If, and when, there exist several anastomoses that join in a federation, they do therefore not lose their moral sovranty (for example, in that they would not have the right to separate). For it is not the interlinguistic federation but the assemblies of the speakers of the same language that ultimately retain the independent power to decide. (This argument is only valid if, and so long as, communities must be regarded as different language communities for nonanastomotic, nondenominational reasons.)

While an anastomosis or a federation of anastomoses may have an organizational hierarchy when this is necessary or desirable for their functioning, such a hierarchy must not be based on, or reflect, individual or other forms of personative exclusivism. Instead of being dictatorial, monarchical, oligarchic, patriarchal, aristocratic, plutocratic or bureaucratic, an anastomosis or federation of anastomoses is to be a truly democratic organization. Hence, it should under normal circumstances not have a permanent president or 'secretary' as nominal or de facto head of the organization; such will merely contribute to personative exclusivism. Instead of a permanent presidency (or something of that ilk), there should either be no presidency at all or the members of the executive council (or of a special 'central council' of at least three members) should take turns at performing duties which are traditionally those of a president. Only under exceptional circumstances should an anastomosis or federation of anastomoses be (temporarily) led by one person with great official, executive and/or ceremonial power; that is, great in comparison with that of other members.

The final, normative 'authority' in anastomotic matters rests with the Model of Neutral-Inclusivity, since it is on the basis of this Model that each anastomosis will be, or has been, founded, while membership of an anastomosis is voluntary. Altho the Model is not a sacred body of writings purportedly brought forth by one or more supernaturally infallible persons or beings, no organization can decide either by a tie or by a majority or minority of votes that the Model would be incorrect or partially incorrect. It is only if, and when, all members of an anastomosis (or those they have freely given a mandate to) agree, and continue to agree, that a smaller part of the Model in their language is not compatible with the larger part of it, that they (or their democratic representatives) may decide to deviate from what is stated in the part of the Model in question. They will then recognize its overall 'authority' nonetheless. This abstract 'authority' is, of course, a nonpersonal one not to be confused with the personal authority of those who believe in the primacy of the authoritative. In an even more abstract or symbolic strain, the final 'authority' in intrinsic anastomotic matters must be conceived of as resting with the doctrine of neutral-inclusivity: 'the doctrine that is our master'.

Since every speech community has the right to a sovran denominational organization, also the speakers of This Language may have their own anastomosis. If they do indeed found such an organization, its name shall be the Anastomosis of (the Speakers/Adherents of) This Language. And it shall be one among the anastomoses of the speakers of all other languages.