BRONKEY SAYS IT ALL!

In a recent discussion with a very intelligent, compassionate, and amazingly handsome local xi'paal Bronkey (Hi, Eli!), the imperial, enforced labels and their meanings came up again. By labels, I mean “hetero, homo, bi, gay, straight, g0y, queer”, and the like.
A quick history lesson is in order- previous to the eugenics-based “modern psychology”, no one really cared who was being erotic with whom. In many imperial monotheist cultures, it was expected most men were to have children, but beyond that there wasn't a real concern. As long as a guy produced some offspring, no one cared what else he was up to. Poetry and letters well into the 1800's exposed a cult of romantic masculine friendships that were defined in terms which we would think of as exclusively “gay” today. Many of these men had happily and by their own will married a female, and had children. Their bonded male relationships were not ignored or a problem, indeed, as the relics show, they were greatly celebrated. In Germanic cultures, a man without a dear close friend was considered unusual and untrustworthy, a throwback to Viking days. We famously know of Thomas Jefferson being kicked out of a pub in Virginia for Monkey Play with another male. The problem wasn't that he was being erotic with a male, the problem was that the guy he was monkeying around with was of black African descent, a freed slave. The pub owner was quoted as saying: “He was having a good, intimate time, which is to be expected. But he was having a good intimate time with a nigger in my establishment. We can't have that. I have other customers.” We also have Abraham Lincoln and James Speed sharing a bed and a law practice. Surviving letters between the two seem that they looked at each other as peer-age brothers, not as partners. Either way, it is a refreshing concept in our very neurotic times.
In traditional Native societies, males were expected to be homoerotic, and many required it exclusively for a period. This was usually around the time of initiation during the xi'paal years. In most societies, homoeroticism was expected of warriors, magicians, and healers. Warriors are not the gurrumiao, married slaves we see today, they were an elite force bonded to each other, and obligations of a wife and children would have been distracting. Pictish, Celtic, Norse, Haudenousaunee, Carib, Taino, and the Sudanese Nuba warriors are the best examples of this; so are the European and Chinese pirate crews. We also see in the Arthurian/Grail stories, several of the knights had never been with a woman, and couldn't- it would render them impure, and they could not find, handle, or be near the Grail.
As we have seen repeatedly, magi, enchanters, and healers were expected to be hypermasculine, homoerotic, and were to avoid contact with females at all cost, especially erotic contact. Females were dangerous, Itiban, and would contaminate the connection to the cosmos. This has to do with the CHIC'CHAN and the way it works. Modern victim-mind-frame queer theory states that “two spirit” males (read: flaming eyeris) would be dressed as women and live as a woman, and do magic and be concubines for the married warriors. Nothing could be further from the truth. Behiques and medicine men were hypermasculine, and were NEVER anyone's bitch. They were deeply respected and trusted individuals, with great status; and not some half-crippled prostitutes from a lower caste. Not only do we have Behiques usurping political dynasties, we have Chichen Itza itself, formed by a group of homoerotic artists, warriors, and enchanters. Google some images. Do you see any weak, subservient, feminized imagery? Therein lies the oft-discussed danger of projecting our modern pathologies and views back on history.


Even when breeding was occurring, males were still bonded and erotic. The South American and Caribbean R & K cultures expected a pair or trio of guatiaos to share lovers and raise each other's children. “The boy has two fathers” is a common saying, and it works out best for all involved- the child has multiple providers and educators, and grows better, is stronger, and is taught more. It truly does take a village, or at least your dad's male lovers. Let's read an ethnographer who was in an unspoiled Amazon forest: Jules Henry, writing about the Kaingang tribe of Brazil, in the book: "Jungle People: A Kaingang Tribe of the Highlands of Brazil". 1935/ 1964, Vintage Books, NY, NY.:


"When the children grow up to be young men and women, a strange dichotomy of behavior is noticeable, which is all the more striking because the Kaingang lay no emphasis on such differences. Kaingang young men love to sleep together. At night they call to each other, "Come and lie down here with me, with ME!" Then there is a shifting and squirming so that Nggugn or Waipo or Kanyahe can lie down where he is bidden. In camp one sees the young men caressing. Married and unmarried young men lie cheek by jowl, arms around one another, legs slung across bodies, for all the world like lovers in our own society. Sometimes they lie caressing that way in little knots of three or four. Women NEVER do these things."
"The men like to congregate together, and when the women are in camp they leave them and sit around in groups, weaving baskets, or just talking. They just visit. Like the indiscriminate playing of the children, these caressings, sleeping parties, and gossipings do not follow relationship lines. Whatever may be the specific obligations of cousins or brothers-in-law, they are completely lost sight of in these ephemeral, wholly casual masculine contacts... The basis for a man's loyalty to man has roots in the many warm bodily contacts between them. The violent, annihilating conflicts among men in Kaingang society were all among those who had never shared the languid exchange of caresses on a hot afternoon under the green arched shelter of a house nor lain together night after night under a blanket against the cold. The very transient, unfixed nature of these contacts leaves no ground for jealousy. The relationships built on these hours of lying together with other males bear fruit in the softening of conflicts that are so characteristic of Kaingang society. Indeed, there is a patterned friendship between men that has woven this contact into it's very warp and woof, and that is the friendship of hunting companions. Men who have hunted together day after day, raided the Brazilians together, slept together beside the same fire, under the same blanket, wrapped in each other's arms, hold this relationship above their kinship with their brothers. The consequences for the general integration of Kaingang society are immeasurable."


We've been over the entirety of the history and meanings of the terms created in 1870 by eugenic-psychiatro-rabbi Karl Westphal in Berlin, Germany: (from the main site)


In 1870, the empire had a psycho quack in Central Europe come up with empire-friendly terminology that could be used to artificially (and officially) define, and then attack and control bonded males and Guatiaos. To sound scholarly and authoritative, Ashkenazi "scholar" Karl Westphal was told to use Greek and Latin to manufacture the new terms. He tried, and failed, but the nonsensical words he came up with were so heavily promoted, that they became part of the collective Zeitgeist of imperial society. Westphal's failure is that the words don't mean what they are claimed to.
HOMOSEXUAL:- Greek. "Homo", meaning "man" (think of the French Homme for man; or Homo sapiens, as our species), and "Sexual", which is cognate in English. So, a "Homosexual" is anyone who gets aroused by and gets off on a male. This would include, then, "straight" females.
(Likewise, the over-used "Homophobia" actually means "Fear of Men", not "Hatred of 'Gays'". Homophobia and Misandry go hand in hand, and are synonyms.)
HETEROSEXUAL:- Greco-Latin. "Hetero", meaning mixed up or confused (think of a heterogeneous sample, one that is all mixed up or jumbled.) Therefore, a "Heterosexual" would be able to get aroused by and off on either males or females. Westphal & Co. called that "Bisexual".
BISEXUAL:- Greek. "Bi" or "Bis(os)" meaning two (think of bicycle- two wheels). This would be sexuality involving two different genders- the imperial word "Straight".
GAY:- itself if from the French Gaiol, which referred to a "courtly celebration of love", which is why in English "gay" still means "happy".
I guess that if I was all "Hetero" and confused, I wouldn't be happy one bit, would I? SO maybe the imperials got "gay" right after all...
Silly imperials! No wonder they're so pent up about their own eroticism- they don't even have words that can clearly express what they are feeling, want or need!


The NiTaino culture uses the term "LUKKO" for male or man, and "MACQIO" for masculine. But, as is evident, there are several penis-bearing non-male kinds of humans as well. What they both have in common is that they have surrendered their masculinity, and it's definition, to non-males without penises.
GURRUMIAO- a penis-bearer who is obsessed with non-males so much, that it can only attempt to express it's humanity, emotions, and caring with a non-male. Is only capable of conquest and domination, so no eroticism is present, only sexuality. It has surrendered it's masculinity to a non-male, as it defined it's masculinity by non-males. If it is not around non-males, it feels it's masculinity is in question. Uncomfortable around and with actual males, so it really isn't masculine at all, even though it thinks itself the epitome of MACQIO.
EYERI- a penis-bearer who is obsessed with non-males so much, that it imprints on them. It surrenders it's masculinity willingly, as it wants to be a non-male. The only males it is comfortable being around are those it wants to dominate or those it wants to be dominated by, in a sexual conquest fantasy.
PARIGUAYO- literally, "little bitch". The term refers to anyone who has willingly surrendered their masculinity to or for a non-male. It can be used for any penis-bearer who, through their own choices and actions, has become a non-male.
The worst part of the 1870 rabbinic definitions are that they define masculinity on females, on how males relate to females. Being that females have nothing to do with masculinity, it is quite a poisonous and insane way to go about defining masculinity. As long as males are defined by something they are not, they will never reach their potential or be fully masculine.


So how are we to define ourselves, we the “homoerotic” (erotic with men) where “gay” and its ilk just don't quite fit? The modern lexicon has come up with a doozy list of attempts of terms, including heteroflexible, curious, questioning, queer, g0ys, and metrosexual. , as they are still based on the gay-straight-bi paradigm, and respond to it in kind.
That is where our terms “Bronkey” or “Hermono” come in. They are both plays on Monkey Brother, and can be used to describe us best.
We have single Bronkeys and married Bronkeys, uncle Bronkeys and father Bronkeys (and even a few grandfather Bronkeys!)
We have Hermonos who are living with men, Hermonos who are living with women, Hermonos who will express eroticism in only a disciplined way, and Hermonos who will be erotic with anything not nailed down.
We have old Bronkeys and young Bronkeys, Bronkeys of many cultures and many lands.


What we all have in common, what makes us all a Bronkey/ Hermono, is our deep love and compassion of and for our fellow males. We recognize their beauty, their sacredness, and rise to celebrate with them body mind and spirit. We are not afraid of intimacy with other males, indeed, we seek it, and in the most respectful, loving, and sacred ways. We Bronkeys/ Hermonos do not vie for conquest, power, or control, we vie for equality and self-actualization.
We realize males need other males, and cannot be complete without them.
We realize there is a historic sacred masculine heritage, and we are growing to recover and become part of that.


- Joaquin 2 Cacimarex, Sewaornock, Manahatouac