What is the indigenous economy anyway, and why can’t ecologists and businessmen, escape needing to learn about a nomadic hunter gatherer economy?

The obvious answer to the question of why anybody living in Australia, can hardly expect to escape learning the indigenous economy, is that our ecological balances are still highly triggered into the indigenous economy.  Businessmen need take heed of this, because no business is real unless it accounts for the flora and fauna, under the sky, upon this Earth, because we have this obligation to the planet, to God-and-or-big-frightening-spirit-beings, and because our own lives depend upon meeting the obligations of maintaining ecological balances.  In general, indigenous culture adheres to the same belief as is dictated in Genesis in the Bible, that men are responsible to a higher spiritual power, for care of the fauna, but the same higher spiritual power will provide to men from the flora, (with that one exception of forbidden fruit).  Men can do dreams of animals, as method of protecting human thought, but it is always higher spirit beings who do the dreams of trees, which may or may not also protect human thought.  And so indigenous men and women are simply waiting, for those dreams we have all been having, of the forests returning, to point the way. 

The economy of gift giving, begins at the beginning, with God’s supernatural gift to men, of plants.  And it follows thereupon, that men, whose economy is more related to animals, also give to one another, the benefits of animist beliefs, as a gift.  Such benefits can’t be stolen, (not even by the many modern day bikers who seek to mimic what Nazis did in Europe, and who have been proven over and over again, to fear Aboriginal Australian’s animist faith, and attempt to prevent us from showing it, as often as possible), and are only a realisable benefit when given.  Our economy is established in this fact.  But such gifts are not given away readily, and are provided to people who we need regard ourselves as connected to within mutual obligations.  Anthropologists call such systems of exchange “reciprocal obligation” or reciprocity.  Reciprocity begins with God giving flora to men, and men caring for fauna, for God, or for many god like spirit people, (aka Angels and/or Demons, depending on what forms you yourself know such beings in, perhaps as Aliens), whose stories instruct us as to how plants and animals and geological forms, original came to exist, and will therefore, come into existence again, and so be maintained, sustained, and retained.

But the essence of how the indigenous Australian economy works, is about more than those differences inherent in it being a nomadic hunter gatherer culture and system of economy.  In Warlpiri language are two words, I need to use, because in translation these tend to get vague in their meaning.  These are Kirda, and Kurdungurlu.  One is the owner or boss, and the other the manager or worker, but it is a managerial level of work in which these words hold meaning.  One man will own land, with several songs and the dreaming of specific species connected to that land, but the other man, will be the manager of those songs, and of any connected sacred art, and he will also be who is allowed to hunt at that land.  In return, in his own land, it is the first man whose work manages the songs and art, who may hunt for food.  The manager hunts and the owner owns, and his ownership sustains an ultimate boss function, in that he is the bottom line choice maker, but his manager is managing him, as well as his land, its songs and art, and its meat.  The manager reproduces the art, through which the meats he hunts for, are going to be sustained, and the manager performs one kind of dance, and the owner another.  But if anything goes wrong, it is the owner whose bottom line faults will be considered to be the cause.  There can be a discrepancy within this analysis of what the owner’s role is by comparison to the manager’s (for example in the case of whose responsibility it is to perform certain dances), but that discrepancy, (which translates into English as different rules in different places about eating “own” food), is readily accounted for as an effect of Muslims arrival in Australia 6-700 years ago, as an earlier form of cultural invasion, by now already subsumed into indigenous Australian culture, and accounted for. It is always the case that the owner is the boss because he cops the blame if something goes wrong, and so he is given every means to enable that he did not cause any wrong in the land he owns.  But because his is the bottom line responsibility function, he has a kind of ability to veto any choices his manager makes, but his manager makes the active choices.  The owning function is purely receptive, except when that rule of an abiding veto, is activated, not to enabling something new or different, but to deny something wrong.  The same two men, are always in a reciprocal arrangement, such that both need trust one another, because on another day, at different land, their roles change, and Kirda is Kurdungurlu, and Kurdungurlu is Kirda, at lands inherited from his father. This is the basic human relationship in which indigenous nomadic hunter gatherer economics is maintained.  Most overt choices are made by managers, whose responsibilities increase ceremonies are, by which biodiversity is maintained.  Owners, on the other hand, maintain those ceremonies which pertain to the stars.  What is the neatest thing about the whole system, is that it enables land tenure inheritance patterns, to keep track of both matrilineal and patri-lineal descent patterns.  No other indigenous society in the world achieved this, having a society which is equally a matriarch, as a patriarchy, never undermining male responsibilities, whilst always honouring maternal ancestry.  It is a system which is astute to the fact that if one man is the only man responsible for the entire ecological balance of an area of land, then his own self interest has the potential to ruin that ecological balance.  By self interest, here I mean the tendency people have to avoid the responsibilities of land care, in respect of the interactions between what blamed what in men’s minds and hearts, and how that impacts upon the ecology.  But when the self interest of one man, is in potential conflict with the food needs of another, whose self interest is also in conflict with the food needs of the first, either they both accept responsibility for the land they own, or go hungry.

Perhaps the nearest relationship in which these Kirda and Kurdungurlu friendships between men, are able to be depicted in the mainstream economies of industrialised nations, is in respect of every coin having two sides.  Is heads the owner or tails, and if tails owns, then what will heads manage tails into, but if heads owns, what will tails manage heads into.  The problem with money is amply apparent, in that most people who have much of it at all, tend to try to suppose that they merely manage, and never own the stuff, in that they fail to accept the real responsibilities of owning.  Furthermore, they then imagine that as managers they might always get to be tails, since tails might sniff out the next fast dollar faster.  We know they imagine they manage since they attempt to gain social control by how they spend their money.  Effectively the ownership of money is in the patterns of thought we engage in while obtaining money, and the patterns of thought we engage in while spending money, are the sign that we are managing it, but essentially it is the behaviour of obtaining money which managed it, and the behaviour of spending money which owned it, and if we were taking Kirda and Kurdungurlu roles seriously, some of our money we would own while obtaining it and while spending it, and other of our money we would manage while obtaining it and while spending it.  Coins have heads and tails, to alert its users as to what function it is taking in another person’s hand.  That is, unless we can manage all our money within Kirda and Kurdungurlu systems, which are intrinsically bound into the whole of Aboriginal Australian Kinship and ecology, the stuff of money would not be within anybody’s actual control, (not even the Devil’s).  The fact that there are men who imagine to gain social control through how they spend large sums of money, and who simultaneously want to keep their animal thinking patterns, and have refused to let those animal type thought patterns, (in which they blame one another), become transposed into actual fauna, is what causes inflation in the economies of nation states.  Who is owning their money?  They can’t actually have supposed that they obtain money while using innocent human thinking patterns, but then spend the same money while needing animal thinking patterns so as to feel as though they were not being blamed, because they blamed somebody else; or could they, or were they blaming like animals to obtain money, then spending it as though they themselves were as innocent as the children hurt by the NTER.  If they blamed somebody else when spending, who ever that somebody else was, has an ownership controlling right of veto over their ability to obtain any more money, yet if they blamed others while acquiring money, surely they gave up their management of it unto who they blamed.  Perhaps this is in fact, how the Global Financial Collapse began.  Elsewhere I have asserted that the GFC was caused by the blaming of heroin addicts for money, rather than the blaming of traditional indigenous families, BUT, I also have strong evidence, that much of the problems with opium abuse worldwide, were being wrongfully blamed upon the Aboriginal addicts inside of Australian prisons.  Now, I guess anybody reading this, who was not already familiar with the Kirda and Kurdungurlu relationships, might want to doubt that the two sides of every coin ARE the same thing, BUT, we only have to look to ancient China, for evidence, since in ancient China, the evidence of who Kirda is, in the head on the coin, was left blank, and the Kurdungurlu side of the coin, was not displaying an animal, but had writing on it, telling a story.  The evidence that proves what is by trying to negate what is.

Money is a very complicated fact, and difficult to manage, yet perhaps even more difficult to own.  How many of us have actually well managed the same money we owned, and how many were imagining to gain the benefit of management, without any of the culpability of, and responsibility for, ownership.  My point is that too many people imagined that they could simply blame others for any culpabilities carried in how money was obtained and how it was spent, and they were imagining escaping from any future caused by the acquiring of money they obtained and spent.  They supposed that they need not accept the real responsibility of ownership, not of the money in their own hands, or the money which is in the hands of who was blaming them and their means of obtaining money.  What are all the relationships which exist in the economy, between owning and managing all kinds of resources?  Do we have any of those relationships half as well resolved and organised, as indigenous Australian culture has organised all the relationships between people, flora, fauna, and land.  Within indigenous culture all of the Earth’s resources are organised into equitable patterns of management with rights of access, and ownership with rights of veto.  All essentially defined every minute of every day by how human beings relate to one another within Kinship.

Are you thinking of your money spending or your money obtaining, as having the capacity to gain social control?  Is it the kind of social control which carries a veto, or the kind of social control which can redistribute resources?  Many men have imagined that spending money is more like managing it, and obtaining it is more like owning it, but in fact, surely that relationship is the other way around, for all employees.  Only employers spend money in a way that fits in with management patterns, and obtain money in a way that fits in with ownership patterns. (The crossed out part and exclamation marks show an accidental subconscious error I made in my typing the first time I wrote this out, and I am showing it here, hoping it will prove useful for indigenous medicine men in Alice, but I will remove it from any copy of this essay given to the Permaculture Institute.  But a first draft of the essay was already put into the internet through the Permaculture Institute’s Worldwide Permaculture Network site, and their software could not let me change it to correct, but I will keep trying.)  (Most errors like that which were being blamed on me, I catch out sooner and can avoid writing down, normally, and many of the ones I catch were caused by opium, and can be turned into microbes more readily than into other lives.) The owner, has the right of veto, and is who has to turn into an animal if anybody did.  That right of veto is supposedly expressed in money when we spend it, far more often than when we obtain it, within most people’s thinking.  Presuming, of course, that we can control how we spend our money and were not falling to advertising’s lies.  Yet don’t the owners of the means of production have a veto over how they obtain their money? The manager in indigenous economics, has right to use and/or redistribute resources, and is more alike to who is obtaining money and other wealth by work, but also more alike to who is spending money and other wealth, by employing people.  It should be that each dollar and cent, and pound and yen and euro, stays being either owned, or managed, whenever in the hands of any one individual.  Seriously, if we imagine we could swap roles willy nilly between managing and owning, what is holding us accountable to sustaining ecological balances?  Some of you will suppose, but how then could we make a profit, and I mean to tell you, that those are the profits which were causing environmental degradation, and that all profits which cause no harm, are due to the generosity of your fellow men. No wonder the right wing of politics here in Australia imagined getting away with trashing the carbon tax, because it represents that generosity as required for profiting, since nobody gives to those who never give in return.

Perhaps these views I am expression, were only my own individual better judgement, as I am sure some folk will want to imagine of these words, as though their views were above mine, and yet I am witness to those who have lacked such assessment of the economy as I am making applying Kirda and Kurdungurlu relationship analysis, sinking below me in the ether.  And it is I, not they, who wish my exact words be supervised and monitored by traditional Aboriginal medicine men, so as that they are clear about any active effect my words could have upon how others perceive them.  I am not exposing to you how I use my money, I am only expressing the problem with money.  But which side is which of the coins in our monetary economy?  Are you always tails (exposed to animal type mental processes) when you spend it, and always heads (exposed to human type mental processes) when you obtain it?  Or was it the other way around for you?  Are you forgiving echidna when you use five cent pieces, or forgiving the Queen?  You seriously can’t expect the whole of the Kirda responsibilities to be upon her head, can you, and yet neither the whole of the economic management of Australia, as Kurdungurlu.  Most people have that relationship the wrong way around, which enables them to imagine that nobody was actually the responsible person for engaging in ensuring that far gone blame on other people, is exorcised from people’s dreams, and actively turned into plants and animals.  But what do I mean by the other way around, was I referring to an opposite set of switches in the money trick, or referring to the fact of actual real responsibility for use of money to enable the ecology?  The correct way to use money, so as that it can’t cause environmental degradation, is for some of our money, to be obtained and spent in an ownership pattern, and for other of our money, to be obtained and spent in a management pattern.  In owning money we obtain it as a profit on investment, and spend it on commodities; while in managing money, we obtain it as wages, and spend it in investing it.  When we begin to get this fact, we also quite naturally begin to expect that the only investment possible is that of giving gifts of money away as wages to other people, who are then our managers.  As soon as we apply the kirda and kurdungurlu system to money, we begin to notice that spending money on increasing the output of the means of production without increasing the labour force, is just a total waste of money. 

That is basically what Marxist mathematics proves also, in the “theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to decline”, which is neatly outlined in the book about Coca Cola written by an Australian Marxist historian named Humphrey McQueen.  I spent my youth among socialist thinkers and studying the work of Marx and Engels, but came to regard it as having a fundamental flaw.  What that flaw was I knew, had got to do with how unionised work forces in industrialised nations, have the capacity to make financial gains which are outside the nature of the relationships defined by Marx and Engels, as the rights of a waged labour force.  The Australian government of Paul Keating went some way towards addressing that fact, by introducing compulsory superannuation, such that many Australian workers these days, recognise their interests to be far more aligned with their employer, than as an employee.  What changed from that happening?  Perhaps it is not a large enough quantity of our income from wages, which is being invested, (and so in both respects, adhering to the kurdungurlu manager pattern rather than the kirda owner pattern), for our conscious minds to notice the difference, but it is a substantial opening in the subconscious minds of many; opening us into realising how it is possible for Kirda and Kurdungurlu way to work eventually for everybody’s uses of money.  Also, money obtained as wages, (in a kurdungurlu manager role), and given away as gifts to charity organisations, can have the same impact on the subconscious mind.  Meanwhile, money obtained as profits on investments, which is spent on commodities, at the other end of the economy, (money obtained and disposed of in kirda ownership functions, of having little real control, other than a right of veto), is well known of in having made many very wealth men very very ill indeed, which is why they tend to give it away to charity organisations also, yet from a very different motivation, (that of seeking to turn ownership into management when it suited them).  If only those wealthy men could have accepted their responsibilities in the role in owning a right of veto over money’s uses, they may have retained their health, but they too often did not want to have to. 

Ideally, within the Kirda and Kurdungurlu system of economic organisation, the owner, Kirda, who has inherited this responsibility from their father, will not need to become thought of as inimical with the flora and fauna of their land, because ideally, everybody will sustain fully human thought processes, and no errors will occur, but when errors happen, and in particular when blame got laid, the fault must be accepted as the land owners, the Kirda, who learned best from their father, why not to lay blame upon anybody else, for their inheritances of land.  Kurdungurlu, who inherit such management responsibilities from their mother, in respect of lands she manages for another Kirda, are all hard at work to ensure than errors are not made, since that is the kind of management a Kurdungurlu wants to expect from their Kirda friend, when the reciprocal arrangements are in place, and Kurdungurlu now Kirda, and Kirda now Kurdungurlu.  The system only works when everybody gets a look in on both functions.  The function of the right of veto and of owning culpability for human error, are functions working combination together as Kirda; and then the right to hunt food works in different combination with working the dreaming through the Arts, as Kurdungurlu.  If you can wrap your head around the system, you can perhaps imagine how readily it could downsize any economy, just as it had kept indigenous Australians in nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyles, happily maintaining the biodiversity of arid and semi-arid climates.  The thing about the Kirda and Kurdungurlu system of economics, is that it requires the mind to be trained into its thought structures, otherwise anybody could only too easily, imagine that any faults present in how money was obtained and spent, were nobody’s responsibility.  This is a complex pattern of thought, to apply the Kirda and Kurdungurlu system to the monetary economy, but in the minds of everybody who is able to, it is very obvious why the Earth is in trouble, but also what kinds of social changes can institute permanent redemption within the monetary economy.

The origins of the Kirda and Kurdungurlu relationship system of managing all economic exchangs, is in the nature of relationships between the Spirit Men, in the Dreamtime, which is the same as saying that the origin is among Cherubim as Kirda, and Seraphim as Kurdungurlu, as Gods will in the Sky, or in the Heavens, asserts itself at Earth, and therefore it is an immutable fact.  I ought to add, that I fully understand how confusing it can be, to apply the system of Kirda and Kurdungurlu relationships to the monetary economy, yet when Kirda and Kurdungurlu relationships are managing the economy, such as in the economies of remote hunter gatherer indigenous Australians, the system is an active simplification of complex movements of mana, which define what exchanges are equitable on the ground.  It simplifies everything, and enables us to experience life within God’s grace, and have no fears for ourselves.  In particular, the fears of pestilence, war, famine, and death, are so far reduced, that anybody with genuine experience of living within the system, never fully returns into any other way of thought.  How to simplify the whole understanding, is through the Arts.  In respect of who enacts what performance, or paints what picture, or communicates which story and what Dreams.  When these social functions are clarified, the confusion dissipates.

My point is, that when men who want to run the business of using money to provide for their families, in a way that is enabling of bio-diversity within the ecology, and is enabling of reforestation, they could do well to learn among traditional indigenous men, about how patterns of Kirda and Kurdungurlu relationships work.  How will it play out in time, and what is the social cohesion function really like in experience?  I can’t answer those questions for you, but can recommend experiential learning.  What I am going to recommend, is that intentional communities can immediately undertake research into Aboriginal Kinship, and Kirda Kurdungurlu relationships as a part of the larger picture of Kinship.  Any intentional community is an ideal place in which to enable a few weeks of role playing of the kinds of relationships expected by one another within traditional indigenous Kinship.  My point of view is clear, in that I believe it will improve all human relationships, but it will also improve the work output of everybody; and it will improve the relationships we all have with our flora and fauna, whenever we are astute enough to accurately include our flora and fauna into our analysis of Kinship.  Just think of the amount of energy we each waste daily by worrying about who was to blame for what, when if all that blame was socially and environmentally prescribed, (as in Kirda and Kurdungurlu relationships), in fact immutably ordered, we would worry less, find less to blame, feel less need to depend upon having anybody to blame, and all work harder with more ease.  This is my real experience of Spiritually awakening within the cultural context of indigenous Australia, of a massive energy release becoming available to me, simply from the self realisation of my own innate belief in nothing to blame.  Life and work are more invigorating when we never need worry as to who was to blame.  I think that it is possible to enable Permaculture people, (Permies for a permanent commitment), in theory and in practise, to learn how to model social relations upon traditional indigenous Kinship, as a model of how to pattern all our human relationships, and then teach this.  But perhaps the most significant point I need to make, is that if it is done properly, it could enable that the profitability of any Permaculture venture might increase, without the increase in financial income, having a negative impact on anybody’s health, or the health of good social cohesion and communication.  Why this can be possible, is ONLY in that Permaculture is enabling of biodiversity.

It is early days yet in the relationships we have the potential to evolve between indigenous Australians and permies, and here I know I refer to my own ability to define these ideas also.  The analysis I am trying to express, can run itself into fearful delusions very readily, when the wrong function carried in money, is applied to the wrong behaviour; but, when the correct social function is understood to be engaged in its appropriate behaviour, and the right side of each coin is related to within each experience of money, then, the money becomes capable of improving environmental outcomes, human health, and simultaneously lets itself be identified in our minds, as something we would all rather not have to be dependent upon.

Let me try to express the idea more simply than I have already.  A coin has a tail, because whenever it is in hand, and the person whose hand it is in, wants to blame anybody else for how that money came to be in their hand, and also for how they may have intentions to spend it, then, that person blaming others, becomes alike the animal on the coin.  A coin has a head, because it required real human thought, devoid of any blame, to honestly work and gain the worth which the coin is presumed to represent; and that real human thought is being presumed to be present while the money is being spent and for it to be given to who needed it, rather than to pay for the profits of companies making worthless commodities and tricking us with their advertising.  But was it when we were paid money, or when we spent money, that we wanted to blame somebody else for the fact of that money existing.  And why does the Australian two dollar coin exist with a head on both sides?  Who had a head for the money?  Was it honest money earned from innocent labour, and innocently given away to pay somebody else for their labour?  Money’s value is defined by what it is worth in exchange for labour, rather than what it is worth in exchange for commodities, since commodities change their price too often, and have been too often costed, without accounting for the costs to the Earth’s environment.  Furthermore, perhaps when we think of our labour itself as a gift to our workplace, and wages as a gift from our workplace to ourselves, (or a pension as a gift from the government who pay it to me now), our mind is somewhat more free of the constraints of the Marxist model of learned demands for more wages.  Who was it who, within use of money, tried to substantiate their humanity, represented by any head on any coin, whilst simultaneously blaming somebody else, and so embodying animal thinking; I ask not because I need to learn, since I already know, and I know that they were who were predominantly causal to the problems apparent in the diminishing bio-diversity of Earth.  It is no coincidence, that many Aboriginal families, with innate understandings of these relationships, fear money so much that we like to see it gone from in our hands as soon as it arrives in our hands.  What troubles we could unwittingly be causing with a hand full of money, just because of anybody else blaming us for the money in their hand, and effectively making us an owner, with that right of veto, over their money as well as ours.  I am unusual in that I have experienced full recovery from my post traumatic stress disorder, through developing thinking patterns in which I enabled my mind to orient to the monetary economy, by remembering traditional indigenous Kinship systems, and the Kirda and Kurdungurlu relationships.  Who manages what I own, I often wonder, and as a mother it is normally my grown up enough sons when I am without any close female friendships within which that management could take place in a Kirda and Kurdungurlu way, (women’s functions in these roles are always monitored by husbands), just as it was my father who managed what I owned when without a husband.  And then I also wonder, what am I managing with my money, whenever I have the managing role, (if only my partner would let me spend all his money)?  My father manages my dreams of money’s worth in ownership, into lots of echidnas in the square jam swear jar, many many kangaroos, a lyrebird or two, a few platypus here and there, the creatures of the coat of arms, and a bunch of buildings and historic figures, which I have been given no right to claim I could manage.  So then what has my right of veto been in the economy?

If I had my way, any right of veto in the economy, in which I have owned any money ever, would bind all such money, if in any way associated with me, (including by blaming itself upon me), into sponsoring and serving the indigenous, nomadic, hunter gatherer, Kinship oriented, Kirda and Kurdungurlu regulated, economies of my land.  But how could I explain that this is a normal reasoning process, and expect other people to believe me, unless those other people are also positively engaged within the indigenous cultural contexts which enable the indigenous economy.  I do not know if I answered any questions, but rhetoric is not necessarily answerable is it?  Or have I?  Have I answered that how important it is for ecologists and businessmen to comprehend indigenous culture and indigenous economics, is so very important, that they will be left behind unless they are willing to try.

Now whether or not I have begun to adequately answer my question within your mind, you Permies who read this, may well have your own reasons, you have always had, for wanting to make your own way into more viable long term relationships among indigenous Australians.  Maybe you simply want to always recognise “prior ownership”, or even better, maybe now you can recognise, that the properties you are considered to be owners of within Euro-centric cultural outlooks, you are actually Kurdungurlu for, and the same properties, still have indigenous Kirda, who own by biological inheritance.  Certainly this is the understanding still maintained today in every Aboriginal community throughout Australia, and when the government instructs its government departments, to agree “in spirit” with certain official “Reconciliation” documents, this is what is believe in by every Aboriginal community in Australia.  Will it be that Aborigines “own” in body, and “manage” in spirit, while non-Aboriginal Australians “own” in spirit, and “manage” in body, all that is the Nation State of Australia, or will more non-Aboriginal Australians become involved in the whole system of Kirda and Kurdungurlu.

I think it already is now that Aborigines are owning in body and managing in Spirit, all of the lands now called Australia, and Non-Aboriginal Australians have to be owning in Spirit and managing in body.  Yet there is a fault embedded in that fact, because it leads us all into queer ideas about what did anything, how anything is ever achieved, and what work itself really is.  In prisons Aboriginal men have been convinced by drug dependency, (I have it on good reputation, that in the prisons the cooks have been putting speed into everybody’s food, so as to impose complicity with the drug dealing and drug abuse that prison security turns blind eyes to, because they reap profits from the sales of other drugs, men then need to get to sleep with), to believe in the fallacy that work can be achieved in the mind, without the body needing to also be working, (not necessarily for money of course), and so both groups lost out, by failing to always recognise how the Kirda and Kurdungurlu relationships are panning out.  I happen to have been exposed myself, to both ways of thought, and this is the point of view which I could not escape from, through being raised in the white mainstream, then reintroduced to black people’s indigenous cultural realities.  Most people who live in both cultures, start inside indigenous culture, and as they move into mainstream culture, they don’t acquire the depth of sense of responsibility for the ways of the white world, as I have growing up in it.

Spiritual management is impossible without also engaging in real hard work of the body, but while the mind is engaging with the sacred, and so this work of spiritual management, may often need its own Kirda and Kurdungurlu, just as bodily management of working a permaculture farm or institute, may also need its own Kirda and Kurdungurlu friendships to be quite formally engaged, and this is why I have engaged myself whole heartedly, some eight years ago, or more, (and why my family, who have remote indigenous ancestry which is not openly identified normally, tend to get tangled up in intellectual work developing ways to discern the difference between Kirda and Kurdungurlu, as our ancestry gave us biological inclination to both manage and own in many differing contexts), in helping out a few indigenous former gaol inmates, to extract their Spiritual work, out from within the gaol context, in which they copped the blame too far, for just about everything and anything.  Here is not the place to begin to identify the trauma many have experienced, (of being forced to become Kirda for all crown land, not only the crown land in Australia), (and yet thus being capable of demanding reciprocal managerial, Kurdungurlu, rights over other lands, if indeed the Queen left her Kirda responsibilities entirely in our hands), beyond simply stating that we all need take a more responsible attitude for the fact that the United Nations lists Australians prisons as having sustained some of the worst human rights conditions in any land.  However, here is the place to reiterate once more, what the importance of the relationship between Kirda and Kurdungurlu is. 

I am going to continue to explain Kirda and Kurdungurlu relationships in as many ways as come to mind, throughout this essay, since it is such an important way of thought, to get right.  And will have to apologise that I am not enabling any specific examples to be revealed here, which could more expediently express the relationships, but I wish not to interfere in such relationships by telling such stories, except as applicable to myself.  A Kirda, owns, because they are who accept bottom line culpability for anything and everything that could go wrong.  Their best friend is their Kurdungurlu, who manages what they own.  The Kurdungurlu inherits from their mother, the right to work the land owned by their Kirda friend, who has inherited the ownership culpability for that land, from their father.  How our relationship with the land manifests in our Dreaming, defines whether we are Kirda or Kurdungurlu for it.  Kurdungurlu receives the motivation to work FOR the land, as though being the primary lover of the land.  Kirda, receives the story of what the land is, and becomes that within themselves; Kurugnurlu is born in and of the same land, out of the land, through the human womb of a mother, and so for Kurdungurlu, the land owned by Kirda, which Kirda become, is the place of residence of the Human Spirit.  Where one is animal, the other is human, and vice versa.  These relationships are extraordinarily well balanced, inside human comprehension, and of flora and fauna without, within traditional indigenous culture, whenever and wherever culture sustains the stability of no enforced removals from lad, such as the ivasion caused, and well balanced such that a Kirda owns what it is safe to feel himself becoming whenever errors were made by his Kurdungurlu, while the Kurdungurlu need never fear becoming what could inhibit his human comprehension.  This is the biggest point of the Kirda and Kurdungurlu system.  It prevents Animist beliefs from causing that anybody begins to dream in the patterns of the flora and fauna and geophysical reality, in any way that could have prevented human thought from being sustained simultaneously.  A Kirda is who in humility, can accept the blame for anything going wrong, without feeling any need to blame anybody else.  A Kurdungurlu, is who may eat the fauna which increases through the Kirda accepting that animal blame, and then letting the blame cause animal dreaming rather than guilt.  In this way, whomsoever works the land, is prevented from carrying any guilty fear, by the Kirda absorbing all potential for that, and then both Kirda and Kurdungurlu together, perform all sacred rituals for the land, so as that the potential for guilty fear, piled onto the Kirda, is processed and instead, causes increases in biodiversity.  Everything every Aboriginal Australian teaches to non-Aborigines about indigenous culture, is so as to enable these processes.  All the art, dances, and songs, and every Dreamtime story anthology anybody ever produces, even Dreamtime stories these days in primary school readers, all our children learn to read with, all of it is for enabling biodiversity.  All are maintained through Kirda and Kurdungurlu relationships, and if you don’t want to believe me in this, you only need find out for yourselves, what traditional indigenous people believe.  But be warned about the seriousness of substance abuse problems, since the effect has been one of preventing normal mental associations with certain cultural beliefs, among many city dwelling Aborigines, to the extent that when approaching Aborigines for information about Aboriginal culture, even the police become mislead by their own presumptions projected upon Aboriginal gaol inmates.

So now perhaps you can more properly relate to why I am offering you Permies access to my knowledge of how to get along with indigenous Australians, in ways that are slightly more polite within traditional indigenous culture, than is easy to assess without having any indigenous ancestry.  There is the reason of enabling biodiversity in everything any indigenous person teaches about our culture.  The more Dreamtime stories you know, the easier it is for any astute old man, (and yes even many of the drunks in the street will do this for you), to use the patterns of those stories in your subconscious mind, to cause your subconscious mind to be enabling of biodiversity.  Not because you were at fault, but because all of us need to accept responsibility for owning and managing the fauna of Earth.  If God gives humanity to the Earth to be owned by the Earth, he is also giving the Animal Kingdom to men, to be owned by men, and vice versa, and the plant Kingdom is his, but managed by men and by the Earth, in co-operation, and these are the kinds of over ruling matters of substance among Spirit people, (aka Angels), which define us in our Kirda and Kurdungurlu responsibilities).  When we were blamed, we can turn that idea of what we were blamed with, into fauna, if only we know what exact relationships exist between which animals and which forms of taking the blame, and then, by letting ourselves become turned into animals from taking the blame, (whether or not anybody else knew), whoever was blaming us, whenever they blamed wrongfully, they also find that the possibility of blaming us again, effectively sort of evaporates, and condenses instead, into a dream of the same animal we let ourselves become turned into by taking the blame.  It is a constantly maintained internal intellectual process within indigenous culture.  The only reason, from within an indigenous cultural outlook, why indigenous men have not been sustaining all those animal transformations, was because of abuse in the gaols, where because of rape, and the prejudices which exist in organised crime, in police forces and among Freemasons, and in some religious organisations, men have been threatened with being murdered, if they were witnessed to have been engaging in undertaking animal transformations of the mana of wrongful blame.  And so, a clear resolution became obvious in my mind, of turning indigenous former gaol inmates into Wwoofers, and this is the direction I have myself been working in, among such men.  Yet what I have found, is that it requires very specialised intensive therapies for these men to recover.  Probably more specialised than Wwooffing hosts can afford without another support service also involved.  I hope myself to one day be capable of establishing an institute which can deliver such therapies, as can provide such support, and that one of the results will be working in conjunction with the Permaculture Research Institute, to enable recovery former gaol inmates, to become Wwoofers.  (For those indigenous men who do not already know, a W.W.O.O.F.er is a person who is a member of a worldwide organisation that started in England in 1972, and it stands for being a Willing Worker On Organic Farms, and the Wwoofing community internationally do a lot of voluntary labour, in exchange for accommodation and/or food, in those farming communities which are absolutely committed to the good land care practises, of organic farming methods.)  Maybe eventually one day, the social ostracism of the penal system, will involve being sent to do hard labour in remote region permaculture establishments, rather than being locked up indoors.  I maybe need to pray more often before I know how to make that happen though.