The brain washing

When the discussion about reliability of official information about Freddie Mercury arose, some fans couldn''t comprehend an elementary logic. They attacked to defend Jim Hatton and Rick Sky''s opinions with astonishing enthusiasm and rare aggression as if their life depended on it. They refused understanding and accepting the simplest things. Their correctness "was proved" with aggression, evil and quotations from some books and articles about Freddie - without answering any question. The rare uniformity of "slogans" was astonishing - the same people were suspected to use different nicknames. But no - it happened that different people gathered by like-mindedness… The myth of free and democratic situation in Queen fan-movement broke instantly. One could spread any rubbish about Freddie - any attempt of defending him provoked the great splash of common evil…
What has happened? All these people are pleasant, well-brought-up and educated. We can speak to them about everything, but if we touch on these "taboo questions", these people change as though another view about Freddie insulted them. This theme has already been discussed and it was said that stereotypes are broken with difficulty. It is partly right. But this time the reason doesn''t lie only in stereotypes - we are talking about changed consciousness.
After taking some attempts to speak frankly to foreign fans on queenonline forum it became clear - different opinions aren''t the issue, but another way of thinking and type of cousciensness. These people lost their ability of thinking, arguing, reasoning and changing position depending on facts. We were talking about victims of manipulations.
One famous political scientist S. Kara-Murza wrote in his book "Manipulation of consciousness": "One of safe signs of implementing the great program of manipulation consists of that people stop heeding reasonable arguments as if they wanted to be fools. Even A. I. Herzen wondered, "how little one can take with logic when a man doesn''t want to be convinced".
"What does the person who wants to manipulate our consciousness aim at when send us some messages in the form of texts and deeds? His aim is to give us such signs, which we can insert into the context and so change the image of this context in our perception. He suggests us such links in his text or deed with reality; he imposes such interpretation on us for distortion of our representation of reality in desirable (for manipulator) way. So, it''ll exercise influence over our behavior, moreover we will be sure that we''ll act in conformity with our own desires".
In other words, the manipulator''s goal is to rob people of opportunity of thinking on their own, to instill them in the only advantageous point of view, and to do it such way when a person is sure that it is his own opinion. To destroy individual in a person turning him into a thoughtless customer of somebody else''s ideas and opinions. A man should want himself to be inspired. Oruell wrote - not to make a man say under the threat of death or torment that he loves Elder Brother, but to make him really come to love Elder Brother.
The majority still believes that the pumping of brains is possible under totalitarian regime, but not under Western democracy with its freedom and pluralism. And this is a dreadful delusion.
In fact, "American" system of manipulation is more awful than Soviet one. Such a primitive communist propaganda outlived its usefulness - its ideas weren''t comprehended in earnest long before break-up of USSR. An American system passes itself off as "free opinion in democratic state" and besides possesses such system of inspiration of its thoughts into society using the last technical and psychological achievements introducing into our consciousness which Stalin or Kim Ir Sen have never dreamt of. Many books were written about western system of manipulation in Russia as well as in Western countries.
But for the first time these technologies, which were used only in geopolitical, economical and historical manipulations, are used against some millions of young fans of good rock-music. This decent man was turned into an absolutely opposite person (but it isn''t new) - they made his fans love all nasty things about him, be delighted with the image of sexual maniac created for him - and hate those people who speak about their idol well. They killed not only desire for finding the truth about their idol but an elementary interest to meaning of his creativity. Let''s find out how it has happened. We''ve familiarized with the main ways of manipulation of social consciousness - its description in some works of modern sociologists, political scientists and psychologists - S. Kara-Murza, N. Homskoy, A. Gramshi, S, Moskovichi… We''ll find out how these systems successfully used by mass-media for coning people are used against Queen fans now; how one version of Freddie Mercury''s life and individual was proclaimed the only and incontrovertible one with a number of psychological tricks.
Of course, it is unpleasant thing to realize myself laboratory rat used in experiments. But to "leave laboratory" it is necessary to realize your presence there. Ancient people said, "If you are warned, you are armed".

Repetition

S. Kara-Murza considers repetition to be one of the first signs of mass-manipulation. According to his words if the same theme is discussed every day or the same word combinations are used so there''s something fishy there. "Repetition influences consciousness, but we control it badly… Repetition is one of those psychological tricks, which blunt our reason and have an effect on instinctive mechanisms. If you misuse such repetition stereotypes increase to stable prejudices, a man becomes stupid".
Bekhteev straightly connected repetition with inspiration. "It influences man''s psyche not with assurance of words, but immediately influences psychological field without appropriate polishing up, so that the real cultivating of ideas, feelings, emotions or some psychophysical state occurs.
The French psychologist S. Moscovichi speaks about technology of repetition in more detail: "Repetition is the second term of propaganda. It gives weight to the statements and turns them into persistent ideas. Hearing it again and again in different versions, in different situations, you begin to be filled with them in the end. At the same time such repetition erects binding barriers against any other statements or convictions with return without explanation these words, images and positions. Repetition gives plainness to them, which make us take them wholly whether we are talking about logic, in terms of which there''s that to be proved has already happened. Being a persistent idea, repetition becomes barrier against different or opposite opinions. So, it takes to minimum discussions and turns some thought into action, on which masses have a conditional reflex, as a reflex of Pavlov''s dog. With repetition a thought separates from the author. It turns into plainness not depending on time, place, and individual. It isn''t an expression of a man who speaks anymore, but it becomes an expression of a subject be spoken about. Repetition also has a function of thought links. Connecting different statement and ideas, it creates some outward appearance of logical chains… And now it is possible to believe in any absurd, be course logic doesn''t protest - "a police of temperaments" of intelligence.
Joseph Gebbels, a "famous" minister of Nazis German propaganda, noted: " regular repetition is a main principle of propaganda".
So, you shouldn''t convince or prove to inspire something - you should just repeat some idea many times - and it will lodge in the depth of subconscious…
Everybody knows how this manipulation is occurred with Freddie. What is repeated especially often today? What word is "a reflex of Pavlov''s dog"? Of course, it is "he was gay".
This phrase, as well as its synonyms and derivatives, are repeated scored and hundred times in books, articles, memoirs, interviews, films… Authors, heads of fan clubs, friends, colleagues and servants of Freddie say these words. It is repeated five or six times on one page from time to time, and the film "Freddie Mercury: the untold story" was honored with the following translation: "Queer: the untold story" be course of disproportionate quantity of phrases about orientation of the vocalist (it was proclaimed as a film about Queen but not a film for demonstration in cinemas for gays).
Why? It isn''t needed as an information - one-two times would be enough. Let''s imagine you that 50 or 100 it will be said "he was a vocalist of Queen" or "he was born in Zanzibar" by friends and colleagues - after 15-th repetition you can think that the author is crazy.
We can''t say that the author doesn''t doubt in homosexuality of Freddie Mercury and wants additional confirmation from his friends. The author is really sure - why does he repeat that all know without it?
May be, the author is afraid of that Freddie won''t be taken as gay? Without depending on private attitude to homosexuality Queen fans take Freddie as he is. In fact, it doesn''t matter. And for those who don''t want to hear anything about "this gay", will never touch any book about Freddie Mercury. All fans are quit naive supposed to know nothing about orientation of Queen vocalist - such system of notification was formed that even the Service of Defense will envy.
So, it has no sense except one - repetition for a sake of repetition, and introduction into our subconscious. And they got what they had wanted - this message stayed in our brains and formed a barrier for any alternative opinion. We see why doubt in this holy formula provokes not a question "why do you think so? Prove it", but outburst of motiveless aggression. You can carry out your own experiment - say in some chat (it would be better to do it in Western chat) "Hey, boys, you know, Freddie wasn''t gay" - and after this watch that circus, which will began there… Also you can try to close your eyes and pronounce a word "gay" - trace with whom this word will be associate… Implement a survey of population, which have already carried out - and it will happen that people might know nothing about Freddie Mercury, about his songs, even about Queen - but they will say with absolute confidence… you know.
With repetition almost funny occasion during queen tour in Brasilia. A journalist asked Freddie if his clip "I want to break free" connected with the world of gays. Freddie answered negatively, explained what they had wanted to say… then a journalist asked him the same question on the same tone, not changing any word. Freddie stared at her with amazement…
Repetition is impossible without establishment. Inspired thought should be repeated with tone not enduring any objection. The main sign of manipulation is proposal of some version, supposition, private opinion, and chat for a reliable information.
When the opinion of one person becomes the only right one, the following stage is generalization. "Necessary" information isn''t just passed off as the only right information - they inspire that all think this way. For example, "all his friends say that he is gay". In fact, only a few people say it; moreover the rest of "the witnesses" couldn''t know the privacy of Freddie. The main thing is to give an objective, passing off an opinion of some people as a common opinion. And Queen fans automatically fire this phrase.
As a result, this kind of statement stay in our brain and a man react exactly by some program, he doesn''t think and pay his attention to real facts.
For instance, during debates on queenonline one of the members asked that Freddie hadn''t been a religious person. But what about the song "Jesus"? Here is his answer - how can gay who drink and use drugs believe in God?
So, statements which don''t have any fact and are introduced into our conscious with endless repetition (a gay who drank and used drugs) seem more important than fact (a song "Jesus"). But logically this statement is also an absurd - because gay who drink and use drugs can believe in God.

Mosaic

Another sign of manipulation is mosaic character of information being presented, creation of the system of mosaic culture.
Before understanding what mosaic culture is, we should examine what traditional, human, integrate culture is. Or how it is called in sociology - "university".
Such integrate culture gives the whole representation about this world, Universe, not depending on the level and amount of knowledge that''s why it is called "university" culture (Latin "univerce"). It doesn''t matter what you study within "university" system; it is studied in complex, in total with surrounding world. If the life of famous creative man is researched, he should be told in context of society, state, world, culture, epoch… We''ll know about his ancestors, family, childhood, brining up and formation of individual, about his studies, creative development, about situation in his state of his epoch, about his friends, political and intellectual debates in his circle, his view and goals of his ideological opponents, about his inner world and surrounding society, wars and revolts… In "university" biography nothing can be unnecessary - be course a man live in society and it is impossible to understand the individual when you don''t know the world around him… The chapter about literary Moscow and St. Petersburg''s salons of 20 - 30-s won''t be unnecessary in Pushkin''s biography. As well as engravings of views of old St. Petersburg and "Bronze Horseman" to understand what he thought about and what he dedicated his poems to.
"University" film is a detailed story about individual and epoch. Unhurried narrative… Memories of friends… They have a little time in film but it''s enough to remember some story of hero''s life during some minutes - touching, funny or instructive one. There is music out of shot, unhurried voice of the narrator and a voice of the hero. If he was managed to shoot he appears and speaks something; we hear his voice, listen to his story. If he is a singer they play his songs… Information acquired smoothly, we have time to think.
But there is another cultural system - mosaic, created according to opinions of political scientists for managing people.
In mosaic system culture scatters into a number of accidental, awfully connected with each other ideas. Information consists of pieces, fragments, which snatch from the endless stream of messages and without some logic and links.
According to A. Mol, a famous Mass Media specialist, in mosaic culture a system of knowledge forms in different fragments connected by simple, accidental relations - proximity, sonority or associations. These fragments don''t form the whole structure, but have a force of coupling and form an illusion of the whole message.
In Kara-Murza''s opinion to influence conscious it is necessary to create a stream of chaos, muddled messages instead of one coherent thought, which will be thought and remembered. The variety of material given when all links between phenomena are refused can''t give man realizing and thinking over this information on his own.
Fundamental sign of mosaic culture is fragmentation. Integrated problem is divided into small fragments and is given this way - so that a reader or spectator can''t connect these fragments together. Freire, a founder of the theory of conscious manipulation, considers fragmentation to be a distinctive means of cultural suppression. According to Sheller, when integrated character of the problem is gone round deliberately and some fragmented information offers as a reliable one, so as a result we have ill-informity and misunderstanding. Tearing information on many pieces, it is managed to decrease an informational effect of the message or deprive it of any sense at all. If some theme is subjected to fragmentation the main things aren''t remembered or given in such a limited or distorted form that they are deprived of any sense. As a result a man can''t get the whole, finished knowledge about the theme. He can be sure that he knows the theme - but in fact he can know nothing except that information which "they allows to know".
And what can we see in the event of Freddie Mercury? He is a model example of mosaic.
All books about him is a stream of chaos, odd and fragmented messages, deprived of any links and sense. The whole strata of his life and creative work aren''t touched at all. Against any rules they move from one theme to another, then, not finishing their talk, the third theme begins, there''s no logical, chronological, biographical, and meaning order.
If we deal with some memoirs, the memories are torn on small pieces as Doctor sausage and scattered among other memories. If it is an interview collection of Queen member, there are pieces of phases pulling out the context, interview of different years and different reasons. It was only mixed in one informational omelette.
If it is a documentary about him - it seems to be done specially for provoking mental dysfunction of its spectators. As in a kaleidoscope, in crazy speed faces, words, fragments of phrases flash past. The members of the film can''t even pronounce two words; they can''t say anything till the end. Some man appeared, said a word, another man - another word, the third face… There''s no any coherent thought, idea, phrase, and story. If someone was allowed to say more than two or three phrases without interrupting - it''s real happiness. The film seems not to be a ready-made product but rough component, which should be done as a suitable thing for a show.
The fast speed of the words and depiction leads to that a man can''t simply comprehend information adequately. Using such a quick change of scenes, unusual for a normal psycho, it''s impossible to think over the message, as well as to come to some conclusions - it is connected with using of "quick speeds" and flashes in mass-culture. The text or depiction forms with the principle of "a stream of microevents". Catching on this system led to "crisis of macrotext", which can explain the world and society.
It leads to that what psychologists call "artificial schizophrenia (it means splintering) of conscious" (Greek shizo - to split, and phren - mind, reason). Mind looses ability of finding some links between words and terms. It also leads to loosing of coherency of thinking, people aren''t able to link taken messages to one logical system and think over them. We only have to comprehend information passively, believing in all being said. Instead of dialog between author and reader (spectator) traditional for university system, mosaic culture id reduced to a monologue of the author and the whole passivity of the reader.
But it isn''t enough to distort the theme by fragmentation and splintering. It is necessary to deprive it of that without what a proper perception is impossible. It is necessary to remove all contexts.
Freddie Mercury is a man without the past, the presence and the future. A man without parents, ancestors, history and cultural company. He is not a man at all, but an air ball, which flows in vacuum space among gay clubs and record studios. His parents are slightly mentioned - if there weren''t their names and photos we would think that we are talking about an abandoned baby from orphanage, and the theme of his decent and ancestors isn''t even touched - with the exception of his nationality. Childhood isn''t mentioned at all or in general terms. They pull Freddie out all contexts of his family, culture and religion, they inspire us that it is "not important". It is not important so that we see many mistakes and contradictions in the description of his childhood… About his religion they just say that Freddie hasn''t professed it (as any another one). To avoid possible interest to his family they absolutely lie to us, maintaining that he didn''t communicate with relatives and "was supposedly ashamed of his decent"… As a result, some Queen fans don''t even know that Freddie was not an Englishman.
His inner world, feelings, his friends, their ideology, way of thinking and cultural influence - all this completely fall out the field of vision of Queen fan. All countries where Freddie lived are only a theatrical set to the performance about Great Gay. It doesn''t matter it is India or England, London or Bombay, oaks or palms… The Independence of India and civil war, blood revolution on Zanzibar, homeless children in the streets of Bombay, corpses of Zanzibar Arabians being killed by violent Africans, blood, suffering and misery of unhappy "third world" - as if it kept passing young Farookh Balsara, and he lived in a vacuum, out of the history. There is nothing except a block in a computer game - Freddie in India, Freddie on Zanzibar… However England is the same block. As Freddie didn''t leave in the country where prices and taxes raised, bombs explored in the streets, blood poured in Ulster, miners were on strike, young guys died in Falkland war, the demonstrations against the policy of Tatcher took place… If some event in outside world is mentioned it means that it straightly took its toll on him or Queen… Just in case a new false "explanation" has already been ready - this man wasn''t interested in politics at all, didn''t vote, didn''t look at the window… He wasn''t interested in anything except his job, cocaine and "unisexual sex" in gay clubs… It doesn''t matter that the problems of the outside world were reflected in Queen songs and clips…
However, there are no other contexts of Freddie Mercury''s life - what he was interested in, what he lived for, with whom he was friends, with whom we talked and what he argued about… In brief, without any details they mentioned only rock-music and interest to painting and antiques. Only one context exists. The whole Freddie''s life is discussed only in this context and all victims of experiment should remember only it - homosexual one. That is his childhood, and school, and creativity, and home, and friends, and his inner world…
There is no and there has never been a man with immortal soul who''s lived and suffered in this world. There is a virtual character Freddie Mercury who is deprived of all feelings and memory and who doesn''t understand who he is and where he is from. As that character from the film "Solaris" - when I open my eyes I don''t know who I''m, where I am from… I''m scared…
It''s clear why he behaves himself this way, why he doesn''t sleep for nights, having sexual orgies and taking sniff cocaine and tries to loose himself in his work. He is afraid of closing his eyes and staying alone. He is an artificial creature, a virtual man, Invisible man. This man is deprived of individual, he can be changed using your own discretion as in a computer game. If you want you can change his sex and age, you can make him gay or drug user. You can do all you want, change him how you want, Be course he is flexible and mobile, but he is not a man. As that mathematician in an American fantastic novel, who was deprived of his memory, they kept only formulas…
And this is not Freddie. But it isn''t the fault of real Freddie that he is deprived of all things, which everyone (not only famous people) has, and his fans are deprived of their mind.
And now, when Freddie has been cleaned from all "unnecessary", they can manipulate our conscious endlessly. The next stage:

One man - one version

The next sign of manipulation is totalitarism of the source of the message. It means only one version of the events is presented to masses without any alternative opinions and sources.
It seems to be another life… Is it possible under democracy, pluralism, word and information freedom, hundreds of free and independent Mass Media?
But it is possible. Under dictatorship the lack of alternative opinion is too obvious, and it abruptly decrease a psychological effect of propaganda. When all state papers repeat the information from "Pravda", for clever people it''d be clear what happens.
There''s another situation. There are hundreds of papers, magazines, TV- and radioprograms - and they repeat… one version of the event. In political science it is called "outward appearance of variety". Feeling of vigilance is blunted and a man thinks: "O''k. If all people say this it''s true". To doubt in it is to doubt in sunrise. If it hadn''t been truth, some papers would have written about it, wouldn''t it?
In fact, only the most fanatical admirers of "common human values" have those illusions of freedom and objectivity of Western press. A famous American scientist Homsky wrote: "A fundamental principle, which is broken rarely, lies in that thing that those facts, which are contrary to interests and privileges of authorities, don''t exist". He meant an American press, not Soviet one. But one American paper tycoon Loose addressing to his minions of magazine "Time" straightly said: "To hell this objectivity!"
For successful manipulation the following means are used:
1. The lack of alternative, uncontrollable sources and opinions, a kind of isolation from outside influence, unity of opinions under outward appearance of variety and illusion of pluralism. At some discussions organized for the same outward appearance they discuss not different points of view, but details of one version.
And this happens with Freddie Mercury. Among scores and hundreds of books, articles, films, TV- and radioprograms there is no one, which can offer some interesting opinion about life, death and creativity of this man.
There are many contradictions, but there are no two different versions.
When in the first book Catherine II is written to be a devious old woman who was interested only in power, her own pleasure and many lovers, but in the second book she is called to be a clever, great, educated woman and she wasn''t promiscuous at all, and Russia in the time of Catherine II became blossoming and power, but her enemies and envious persons spread these chats about her life. These are two different versions, two opinions. That''s why it''s always interesting to read different books about one man or event.
But when we are talking about propaganda and manipulation (as in the case of Freddie) - we see the only version of his life - in the eyes of Mary Austin, Jim Hatton and Peter Freestone. The lack of other opinions creates the illusion that they don''t exist. The outside influence isn''t just assumed. G. Sheller wrote in his book "A manipulation of conscious": "Informational monopolies limit an informational choice in all fields of activity, offering one version - in fact, their own one".
To create an outward appearance of "discussions" they should give a word to a special invited clown who will spout a kind of delirium and so incline the opinion of the audience in favour of the opponent. In the case of Freddie mental sick people like Melissa Richmond, "interpreters" like Livingstone or "fighters for morality" play the role of "opposition", who call thunder and lightning on the head of "this gay who died of AIDS and is burning in hell".
But according to Kara-Murza, "such a manipulation is possible only in that case if some really alternative opinion doesn''t burst into during this action. An independent voice, even very short sound, makes a magical effect - it takes off an apparition. The atmosphere of inspiration built by manipulators is broken, when their minions inspire incontrovertible truth - it must be imbibed… If some uncontrollable voice bursts into the action of conscious manipulation, this action is cut, even they''ve invested much money in it - it can cause reverse effect.
That''s why it''s prohibited admitting "to masses" such an independent opinion. But if it has happened and invasion has already taken place, so is the main means of fight against "foreign body" - discussions? No. Cheap attacks, hysteria and hanging of labels. Besides this and arguments like "nonsense", "delirium" and so on… it is necessary to use some term, caused horror in social conscious. A word, which means one thing, but is grasped like something different. "Communist", "fascist", "Stalinist", "anti-Semite"… In our case the breaker of patience is awarded with label "gomofob" (a word having a meaning "who fear people", not "who hate homosexualists"). It''s all in vain to explain that it''s not right - it is necessary to inspire hatred and contempt to breaker of patience and to close this discussion immediately - till he, God forbid, won''t bring poor victims of pumping of their brains round.

2. Using of authorities.

In the system of manipulation it is important to secure the support of those people who have an authority in masses and they should desirably be famous and recognizable. And each social group is offered it''s own authority - professor, footballer, and model…
But in our case it is managed partly. No one like David Bowie or Cliff Richard performed the role of "the witness of depraved way of life". But it''s enough for manipulators to secure "good behaviour" of famous colleagues - it means to be silent, not to object, to agree and to speak some common words about "a great singer, musician and showman".
And besides it''s enough to just take part in dubious action for demonstration of their consent. Not without reason wherever in USSR all creative people, who had a reputation of dissidents, were persistently invited at some political actions - if not to speak, but even to present - it can proclaim their consent with this policy. It''s enough to ask Monserrat Caballe to write the preface to the book about Freddie and then to place this preface into regular porno-book. It is sufficient speeches Queen ex-members in the final part of Begar''s ballet. Appearance of Elizabeth Tailor and the official of League of Sexual minority on the concert dedicated to memory Freddie Mercury with the lecture about usefulness of contraceptive devices. The appearance Queen ex-members and Mercury''s relatives in one space with Mary Austin and Peter Freestone - and the photos of their smile. The appearance in one film "authorities" and Jim Hutton, in conditions, that in some expressions, that will be included into the film, there will be no nothing "uprising". The participation in one project Brain May and odious personal like Mick Rote.
In the last years it is noticed as well attempts directly to draw into manipulation Brain May - using his authority among Queen fans. The same attempts were undertaken concerning mother and sister of Freddie Mercury, delirium is widespread also from their names - at the same time with confirmation that before Freddie''s death his family didn''t know anything about his mode of life.
They will say - that impossible to believe even to Brain May? It is called "to be in captivity of the authority". If even the honest and respected man tells obviously lie, it should necessary "to absorb" his words, it should better to think why he had told these words, what arguments he had, and, in general, whether he spoke that was ascribed to him.
It is very difficult to believe that Brain May being in sound mind could call "Body language" gay''s hymn. To tell the truth that Freddie didn''t want to perform "Fat bottomed girls", because he didn''t have desire to sing about love to opposite sex. That Brain ascribed to himself superdepravity and failure of brakes in the period of combined tour of Queen with Mott the Hoople - at that time in reality he had suffered from hepatitis and his hand was hurt during that tour, once he even fell into fainting spell during the concert and he was taken to the hospital…
Besides that there are many interviews of May, where tells about Freddie in some other tone of voice. What shall we believe "from May" - that Freddie was a normal man and conduct the normal life, or that he lived "another social life, than we"? That they couldn''t think that Freddie might be a gay when Queen was organized or that in early songs of Freddie there were already homosexual hints? That Freddie wasn''t profligate and his AIDS not from depravity - or because he lost his brakes that''s why he became ill? That he was very secretive, or didn''t keep in secret in his homosexuality? That in his creativity of Queen there was nothing homosexual - or that Freddie wrote "hymns to gays"? That he never quarreled to Freddie - or he hardly fought with him because of his homosexual tendencies?
It is necessary to think something. And ask questions to ourselves, and if there is possibility - and to some authorities.

3. Straight lie and fabrication of facts.

In that case, when it is difficult to unmask a lie, they tell lies directly and much. Fabrication of facts is met in our case constantly. This is depravity, orgies, gay-clubs, drug addiction, cocaine parties, and drinking…
Lacking imagery stories told by some "friends" in suck tone, beyond any doubts. Direct falsification of interview Mercury himself and people knowing him. Insolence of the press reaches that one and the same delirium is reprinted as the "interview of different tears" allegedly given by him in different timed and to different journalists. Sometimes some people are thought up and from their names the stories are told by journalists or their biographers (standard case of "interview", allegedly taken by Lesley Ann Jones from Israel gay-prostitution, serving Freddie Mercury, but not in Israel, but in some other geographical point, and also the story of some "witness" of relations between Mercury and Nuriev). Here no provements of such "facts" are submitted, but effect is reached by account usual manipulation technologies.
What is interesting - in the system of manipulation even direct unmask of lie doesn''t change anything. No scandal, no apology, no penalty or critics admitted desinformation as well as it should be. In some cases inside of this system of manipulation somebody tells lie and they unmask it themselves. This creates the illusion of "truth" that everything is objective, but if there is a lie in some information the honest journalists will find it and discover. Concerning to A. Mol, press tells lie in order to make something precise the level of perception of lie, and then low the of lie below this level. Simple testing - what they believe to, and what they don''t believe to. Well-known annual amusement of the world press - the 1-st of April, very often false and absurd information is printed, and than suggest to readers to define what information is false. Usually people "guess" maximum the half of information, because people so accustomed to lie, that stopped to react on it.
That Peter Freestone hastily wrote that there were no cocaine parties, and that Paul Prenter wasn''t Freddie''s lover. And what? Was there indignation concerning to long-lived deception? Did anybody call liars to the answer? No! Moreover - these materials are printed and reprinted in keeping silence of public, Queen fans and Queen Productions.
The case with the book of M. Ryunty is sufficiently known. It is necessary to remind that there was no official indignation concerning to this material. Thouth many Nuriev''s lovers under nicknames, many homosexualists were published, but press hooked to the short chapter about connection with Freddie Mercury. Soon this "world''s novel" was discussed by all newspapers, this nonsense hit into the articles about Freddie, into the thick biography Of Freddie Mercury from Lesley Ann Jones (where "love affair" was looked though as a reliable fact, and absolutely seriously quoted the whole erotic stage). Perfectly seriously Queen fans discussed this… "Positive" reaction was concerning Freddie Mercury - Nuriev''s fans from the very beginning perceived everything like nonsense and incompetent hoax.
"The lie level" in this case was exceeded repeatedly - Mercury and Nuriev weren''t even acquainted, and lived in different countries. More or less the experiment succeeded. It showed that any individual of man-sex, living on the planet Earth in period 1946 - 1991 may be consided to be Freddie Mercury lover - and everybody will believe this fact without any provements - especially the individual died from AIDS. Then there were refutations in press, Internet and in the book of Laura Jackson - but it is not important. There was no scandal, there was no court, nobody required not from Ryunty, Lesley Ann Jones, not from journalists to apology before relatives and close friends of Freddie Mercury and Rudolf Nuriev. But the book of Lesley Ann Jones received good recalls in British press. Ryunty''s tales are believed many Queen fans, they periodically appear in press.
But in "Queen fan''s elite" haughtily laugh - that they so fool, believed to Ryunty! It is not so good to splash poison gas and then amuse themselves upon those who had convulsions.
Another case - after publishing the book of Rick Sky Reinhard Mack made a sharp declaration, in which he refuted all scandal stories, written from his name. Nothing similar and in such tone I didn''t say - declared Mack. And what? Nothing. Full silence. No reaction - neither in press, nor in fan structures. The book of Rick Sky is continued to publish and republish, false sayings weren''t taken from it, in reality written by Rick Sky, but Mack''s rejection only some people know. And the lawsuit against Hutton, appealed by ex-members of Queen and Freddie''s parents? How could it be? What about the court? How it''s work was carried out? With what results? Who was a lawyer from plaintiffs and who - from defendants? Why don''t we know anything? Why the world and the British press keep silence? Why 90 % of Queen fans even don''t know about this court? Rhetorical questions not requiring answers.

4. Harbouring, suppression and "sinking" of facts. Distraction of the attention.

But straight lie still is used, but not so often. The more effective way to wash brains - not to fabricate facts, but to choose and give some information in order to create necessary opinion in result. According to A. Mol, distortion of reality is often achieved though correction of some small inclinations, always taking place in one and the same direction. He drew out the theory of "small shifts", small inclinations from reality, when they are a lot, lead to polarization of the whole stream of information into a side, profitable for manipulator.
As well as in the case with Freddie, outer chaotic nature and primitivity of information''s stream about him hid "channel", in which conscious of the readers and spectators is direct; making out of air the image of primitive, profligate gay, fop and drug-addict. In a result even some "positive" information''s streams are polarized so, in order to the result has become negative. For instance, if some quotations "break down into some constituent parts", the quotations knowing Freddie people, the impression must be composed as about kind, intelligent and absolutely amenable man. But in the result of "small inclinations" about Freddie the impression is made up as about hysterical, scandal and corrupted person.
Some "unuseful" facts are hidden or kept silent. As it can be seen in case with Reinhard Mack, disagreements and disprovements don''t come to wide public. That''s why the talk about that, "that there are no facts" isn''t correct. First, if we look though in some accessible materials, some facts will be found. Secondly, it is wrong to say that there are no them. We don''t know them - that''s right. They were not published in the Western press. There are no them in books and films about Freddie and Queen, as well as in published stories and in the interviews if witnesses. But that doesn''t mean, that they don''t exist in nature at all. In some manipulations "some unprofitable" facts are not spoken of (they are kept silent) - as well as they were kept silent in Soviet press.
Do the friends keep silence? Don''t you seem it to be strange that they are keeping silence? When mass false comes about the prominent man, people knowing him usually appeal with refutation, public quiet regularly is shaken with scandals and courts. Thus, there is a corporation, which must protect the dead actor due to his name it pumps millions. Here, there is quiet. Does it mean that all written mucks are truthful? It is just on the contrary!
Great Britain is the country with highly developed jurisprudence. In spheres connected with show business regularly go to the court. But nobody out of Freddie''s relatives and friends, out of lawyers of Queen Productions or leaders of fan movement didn''t appeal to the court on the author of pornographic life-stories and scandal memoirs (without taking into account almost secret lawsuit against Hutton). Nobody out of ex-members of Queen didn''t appeal into the court on the authors of the film "Made in Heaven'' for utilization of group''s music in some obscene video clips. Nobody out of them didn''t appeal to the court for the prosecution this creative group in homosexualism. Robbed and shamed family of Bulsara - Cook didn''t appeal to the court on Mary Austin.
When in the South Korea the workers regularly throw stones and sticks into the offices of their employers, but the workers in its turn of the North Korea with the happy smiles speak, that they are very well and they are satisfied with everything, does it mean that the workers of the North - are well, but the workers of the South - are bad? It is just on contrary. It is seen that in the South there is a normal life with its problems, and people have right to address to the court when they are bad, to cry, when they are hurt. But in the North concerning to their happy smiles of exhausted people something terrible takes place.
Here the situation begins to remind just the situation from the North Korea. Even some snapshot materials somehow remind the North Korean magazine "Korea". Pictures of relatives and friends of Freddie are taken generally with happy, smiling faces. But does it mean "this North-Korean rejoicing" is it really everything all right with them?
Oh, the illusion of general freedom and democracy… In reality, when it is necessary to plug up unsatisfied people, it is easy done…
Are you sure that nobody objects? If it is so, this is really abnormal sign - in a normal, free society people are to object. And may be objections are simply ignored?
Brain May told several times that Freddie was not dissolute but was a normal man and AIDS has been got not from depravity. And what? Did this information change anyhow the relation to Freddie? Did anybody doubt in his or her image of "Freddie from Hutton - Freestone"? In reality the majority of fans even don''t know about these words - simply "were not dispatched". Even doubtless authority of May among Queen fans doesn''t help.
Freddie''s cousin repeatedly objected against gossips demanded "to stop this glooming" and " to clear his name". What was the result? Nothing! Her words were published in one small known Scotland newspaper, nobody knows about it, no one book or article about Mercury doesn''t refer to her article, and she wasn''t invited into any film about Freddie. Well, the interview with her was printed in such a way, in order to appear doubts in psychotic state of her health.
And the words about Freddie’s aunt Shero Khory, in which she was indignant concerning slander to her nephew are rendered in such context as though she was outraged rumours about that Freddie adopted Christianity. Funny granny - her nephew is considered to be a gay, drug addict and profligate, it doesn''t concerns her, but when it was asked about Christianity - here her Zoroastrian soul was deeply outraged… In reality her words about those terrible things that was spoken about Freddie and "all the lies being told" obviously seemed the whole complex of "reliable facts". But these words are torn from the context and rendered so, that sense is fully changed.
Well, the absence of facts in press, more often sale, it is not said that there are no them. There is some information that some close friends, people having known Freddie rejected gossips and spoke that he was subjected to slander. Those Zoroastrians, who had a talk to us, don''t believe rumours about him. However, in press nothing similar didn''t appear, it is said about partiality.
Another way of manipulation - "sinking" of important information, that is impossible to escape, in chaotic stream of senseless, empty information. In politology it is called "noise". Important information is sank in a noise, and if even it was sounded, nobody notice it - it is soluted in that stream of senselessness, that is brought down on readers'' conscious - gossips, advertisement, empty talking, etc. Kara-Murza writes:
"For the manipulation aims some methods of attraction are equally important, and keeping of attention to convinced message and at the same time diversion of attention from different sides of reality or some parts of the message. It is always preferably not to tell lie, but to achieve that a man "should not notice" unuseful truth".
He writes about manipulation technology on "switching over attention". Accepting information stream, the man himself concentrates his attention upon the most important objects for him, sifting out less important ones. While reading the text he chooses for himself several "centers of interest" and concentrates his attention upon them, but the other information he simply "passes over". Psychologists compare the attention of a man with searchlight, lighting in human conscious the most important objects.
But in manipulation message the attention of a man artificially are switched over those objects, which are considered more important for manipulator. Important objects are transferred into shadow (in psychology it is called "beforestep field"), but "service object" is dragged up to a man, real or fictitious. It is compared with the tricks of a magician, distracting the attention with the help of his simple tricks. His attention is artificially dispersed, spreading into majority of service messages.
Information about Freddie is "a noise" upon 90%. Reader really desiring to know something about a hero, must become archeologist or aqualungs. The most important information is tons extracted by grains out of mud and water - empty, senseless, but sometimes outside messages. Films about Freddie and Queen also are composed mainly out of water - with outside information and frames, those have nothing to do to the theme as well as to hero. For instance, "Champions of the world", where during 5 minutes they may show moving somewhere car are having a rest fans on the grass, and where different people regularly repeat one and the same. If it is necessary to curtail this film in four times - it will become better - there will be some sense… The matter isn''t only in unproffesionalism. As it is known from psychology, in the system of suggestion, it is better to place on the text "outside" picture. In the USA some researcher was carried out: groups of students were suggested to listen to the speech; some students listened to the speech with switching on image of the speaker, the others - with introduction into speech "outside" pictures, which have nothing common with the theme. There were more students having believed to the speaker, that were in the second group - outside pictures promoted receiving to these information on subconscious level.
In general films and "transmissions" about Freddie have special meaning in propaganda. As it is known, some messages broadcasting on TV (or in the video clips), makes much greater impression than read or heard over the radio…
While making acquaintance with the books about Freddie Mercury and Queen it impresses how they are boring and lacking talent. As though it was difficult to find good authors with elementary literary data, capable to pass information in such a way, that it would be interesting for young readers… Certainly they might… But when a book is written with interest, there is a desire to read it attentively, without missing some facts. In this case the attention of the reader is weaken - boring text, where is constantly repeated one and the same, it leads to dispersed perception of this information - and most of this information passes by conscious…
Similar over workload with official messages and video pictures in obligatory mosaic supply of material leads to that the most important moments of life, death, personality and creativity if Freddie Mercury simply are left overboard, and that is left, "is sunk" and the reader simply doesn''t notice it. He is sure that this is his objective information. Something still gets into the text, because of "switching on attention" does not make any impression. Well, the information about Zoroastrian origin of Mercury, about strange events around his illness and death, about that he was known as well educated, diligent, chaste, and intelligent person, who wasn''t interested in neither homosexualism, nor drugs, though it isn''t kept in secret, but distributed so, that readers simply don''t notice it. All attention is attracted to gossips, gay-clubs, lovers; details that are connected with adjustment of apparatus, interiors, cats, carps - upon the majority of official information as well as real, so false. If we want to carry out the experiment - and take any thick book about Freddie Mercury, get away all gossips, all mud and all "noise", having left only the most important things - only the tenth part of material will be left, with a general information about his life and creativity, that can be read in any popular brochure. It is revealed that all this literature is a manipulative fiction, and in reality we know nothing about this man, about sense of his life, as well as about reasons of his death, we know nothing about his inner world, about his creativity, about his group.
But Queen fan doesn''t see it. "Capture" has taken place, and he obediently discusses cats, flowers, shampoo, ear de Cologne, gay-clubs, lovers and some other nonsense, without noticing that in such a way he was changed some information about his idol, and normal, scientific and musicology study of his creative work. He is not interested in that there is no anything in his books and films. He was told that there is nothing in the life and creativity of Freddie, that he wouldn''t know - and he believes. He is kept. Moreover, he will be offended with someone who says that he is engaged with nonsense.
As well-known expert on manipulation, demon-temptation Balamut from a well-known story of Cleave Lewis spoke: "Fill your client with everyday things. But don''t use science… because science will made him think upon realities, that he can''t touch and see. Don''t let him go away from this priceless "life''s reality". Let him not to see the scientific literature at all. Try to convince him that he knows everything about it, but that he tries to catch from occasional talks, and occasional reading - "these are achievements of modern science". Remember that you are there in order to deceive".
Well, try to convince Queen fan with cats and gay-clubs. Convince him that this is an information about Freddie Mercury. Convince him that the sense of his life is to look into Hutton''s mouth, Freestone and Mary Austin. Then everything will be all right. Neither far Queen fan, of course, - but for manipulators.
Pay attention to the cites where people began directly to speak about their doubts in the information about Mercury, at once absurd topics began to appear. Queen fans are now tried to suggest a nipple of "service object" and at the same time to distract their attention from the important themes. It was called a game by Balamut when someone runs with fire-hose in the period of flood and is afraid that in real moment less dangerous.

The Zero City.

The title of the film Zero City is represented by Kara-Murza as an example of conscious destruction of a man through creation of absurd situations. It is enough to dip a normal man into absurd - and his psyche is occurred to be destructed and deprived somehow of reference points.
In one episode of the film one hero, an engineer Varakin sees a naked secretary in the waiting room. To his horror, nobody doesn''t pay attention to it - everybody greets her, speaks to her and give some papers for typing. When this hero tells about it to the director, he only carelessly says: "Really she is naked… What is tour matter?" Varakin came out of the waiting room almost ill. His conscious is occurred not to be protected from imminent chaos. So, step by step, absurd by absurd, during his stay in Zero City, thinking human person is destroyed in Varakin. Kara-Murza set apart some stages of this destruction:
1. Creation absurd situations, forbidden by some cultural norms, in normal reaction of surrounding people (a naked secretary). Conscious demolition takes place; a man looses solid support under his feet, because the world he had accustomed, values and rules that he is consided to be indisputable are destroyed in his eyes. Accessible, habitable means of order - in the given case - logic sound sense and cultural norms, they are occurred unable to protest conscious from approaching chaos.
2. The following stage is across absurd chain a man id driven to the state when he completely stops to understanding what takes place in reality and looses ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.
3. Through the action upon conscious and feelings paralysis of will to resistance and saving takes place. A man is unable to resist more, he is broken and conquered to his fate. Since that time he will do everything he will be ordered.
In literature about Freddie Mercury we meet "naked secretaries" almost at every page. Remind the book after Freestone. In one of episodes he looks into the door and sees some men and women, dancing on the table, by the way women were changed into men''s clothes, but men were changed into women''s clothes. Later hint is mentioned that these dancing people are carried to sexual minorities… This episode is given without any sense and connection to the previous and following texts.
In this situation Freestone takes the part of the principle than Varakin. Being not surprised he goes farther. Some other "heroes" react calmly too upon these nonstandard situations. Unhappy readers feel themselves like Varakin. Especially it is necessary to take into consideration that similar episodes are many - as well as in this book and in some others.
What behaviour will Queen fan have? More often he simply won''t notice - because Freestone''s book take usually the people, whose psyche has already dashed off serious damage from meetings with the other "objective testimonies". That man, who will notice that, will be suprised, he will try to speak about to his friends, to read reviews about this book - and he will see that everybody praise this book, that everybody calls it wonderful, reviewers praise it for great amount interesting and exclusive information… The prominent "effect of a naked king" - a man thinks that surrounding him people are out of order, but not he. Fearing to seem abnormal and not to be made fun of, he begins to admire altogether - but simultaneously something inside tells him "alarm". It is necessary to suppress inner voice or to be "against everybody" - that may cause serious psychological stress, which not everybody is able to bear.
One of the most important episodes of Zero City is the excursion of Varakin into a local native museum where his psyche is struck. He is shown crazy exhibits (the bad where Attila Disgraced westgot tsarina, sarcophagus of Trojan tsar, who founded the city…). By the way any chronology of historic events is mixed and disturbed - Trojan War may take place after Stalin''s epoch. This excursion is enough in order to deprive our hero of support in history, and that means that he is deprived of understanding present, past and future. While commenting on this episode, Kara-Murza writes: " All history is mythological, but a man can lean on it if it is connected equal "times chain". In order to destroy the conscious of a man it is necessary to introduce into it some absurd episodes, just like viruses into "computer program".
Namely, with destruction of people''s conscious they connect mass derision of historical science as a "false" and creation of absurd psevdohistory, when at the beginning they speak that scientists tell lies and it is impossible to believe everything and then to confused people lost all landmarks made sick and tired antiscientific delirium from false-scientists.
Why is historical science is taken into account? But what we learn about Freddie Mercury is the HISTORY of man and its epoch, and information about his group is the Queen HISTORY.
The history of rock-legend is always mythological as well as another one. But it is necessary to distinguish myths from "viruses", introduced due to chaotic nature and destruction of information. Some legend of meeting Ivan the Terrible with the robber Kudeyar is not the same that "scientific information about crocodiles, which were wandering along Moscow streets in the epoch of Ivan the Terrible. It is possible to anticipate often-occurring objections - it should be thought that all prominent people are often spoken of and written about. Myths and legends don''t disturb to normal perception of the information and are able to cause only a smile of knowledgeable people. But not viruses, converting the book about famous man into uncontrollable delirium with some elements of bright lucky moments.
Remind Varakin''s excursion - and you will understand truly the reason of that delirium, which books about Freddie are overwhelmed with.
For introduction of viruses into information and conscious it is necessary not only "to sow absurd", it is necessary to introduce into conscious some incompatible notions. In political instruction it is called "improper action" and it considered one more way of destruction and submission of the conscious. Balamut advised to do so in order to turn several mutually excluded dogmas and ideas - and then the ability to think is paralyzed.
If enumerate all "improper actions" in the information about Freddie Mercury, it should be necessary to write separate article. For instance, we know that Freddie concealed his homosexuality, and in general he was a secretive and secluded man. Simultaneously we recognize that he never made secret out of it, openly visited gay-clubs, clarified his relations with lovers, organized unbridle parties where cocaine was openly distributed… A very strange mode of life for a secretive man. We recognize that Freddie''s homosexual inclinations revealed at school and in general he always was gay - and that his sexual orientation he changed at the age of 30, and before that he was as everyone, and nothing that nobody noticed concerning him.
A normal man''s conscious is constructed in such way that in collision with mutually excluded thesis (A and B) it should be necessary to choose, which of these thesis is to be adopted or to reject both, if they have no sufficient provements. But we can''t say that books abut Mercury are divided into protecting thesis A and protecting thesis B, the authors of which are in state of discussion - as it can be in the normal biographical literature. The authors often possess both thesis under one cover of the book or magazine without protection thesis A or B and they are not engaged in polemics - any system of the provements having in fact some material is fully absent. We can''t say the author suggests to a reader to choose himself between two (or more) thesis, possessing arguments con and pro of the first and the second thesis - he suggests… to believe both - and again without provements!
It should seem what is it in such way? After all similar these tricks can cause a lot of questions! Isn''t simple to carry out the acceptable logically checking version having thrown aside some facts as items of gossips or mistakes?
Those who think so don''t understand goals of manipulators. After all in case of creation such version Queen fan will get through mistaken but logically acceptable thesis. He will be able to think logically and then that according to the essence contradicts his version, his brain will filter and refuse. He will say: "How could he have lover still at school and in the youth reveal himself homosexual inclinations, if is known exactly that till 30 years he was heterosexual and nobody noticed after him nothing similar. How could he carry out open mode of life of gay if it is written everywhere that he hid his sexual orientation and never was aware of it and fans didn''t know everything? Or vice versa: "How could it be that at first he wasn''t gay if he is written about that already at school had lovers and in the youth manifested himself his homosexual inclinations and there is a letter where he speaks that he is considered to be homosexual? How can he conceal his homosexuality if he openly visited the most worst gay-clubs, lived with his lovers and clarified his relations with them, demonstrated his sexual orientation on the stage, openly talked about it with his friends and everybody knew it?"
Thinking Queen fan, let him think wrong, isn''t needed by them. Their aim is not to create a version that shouldn''t be caused some critical questions but create a man who won''t ask any critical questions. A man who will receive them on equal rights A, B and shouldn''t consider that there is some contradiction between them. How advised Balamut:
"Proving you wake up the mind of a man under care of a guardian and if his mind awakens who will be able to predict a result? Even though in turn of a thought it will take place that we shall be in profitable position then you will discover that attracted attention from the stream of direct sufferings swimming on the surface and the most ruined way directed him into the depth… You must rely upon self-confident gibberish but into the mind".
K. Mannheim writes:
"In the epoch of deep crises the blockade of sound judgement takes place. The necessity to understand, to think of, is tuned into exhausting load and a man tries to leave it and hide into irrational…"
The master storyteller of psychological detective also spoke about it, his name was Chesterton, in his stories about Father Brown. He refused to believe in some information because of its absurdity. He explained so - if he is told that the ghost submitted to lord Gladstone he won''t say "yes" or "no" - the world of ghosts is not in his competence. But if he is told that on the reception of English Queen lord Gladstone didn''t take off a hat, clapped the back of the Queen and suggested her a cigarette - he will decisively object. This is because it concerns the rules of that world that is known to him. This is because that this story contradicts as to common sense, so to rules and laws of Victorian epoch. "I won''t say that it''s impossible, I''ll say that it is improbably".
Queen fan must not speak "this is improbably" if it is spoken about some disturbance rules of his known world that is impossible to explain by the mode of life of gay and dancer of rock''n''roll. He must simply believe and calm his uprising sanity with quotations that "from that Freddie could be possible to wait for". That''s why it is not difficult to explain what greatly shocked several Queen fans in discussions - their opponents refused to recognize these contradictions between different books and version about Freddie. Either they spoke that there are no contradictions and everything is right and compatible or they answered: "Let us think… Is biography - exact science?"
In this context isn''t wonderful the absence of principle difference between books about Freddie and Gutter press. Pumping all books without exception, by conflicting absurd and delirium, they promote to make a fool any man. Simultaneously it is very comfortable - as soon as you expose nonsense it is always possible to say - that it is only gossips from Gutter press… Unstable border between fantasy and reality permits to go away from responsibility at any moment, getting in touch with gossips, mistakes and exaggeration… It is impossible to do so, and this is a lie for what in civilized society to submit one''s resignation - there is no thought about it. After all, even admission of the false information doesn''t stop its following printing of the books and wide advertisement of them. With the words - you have rights not to believe any nonsense, but Freddie all the time was gay, drag addict and profligate… By the way, the influence is possible while you don''t touch "holy cows" like Peter Freestone - here even frank delirium of a mad man furiously id protected and given as a truth…
In "Queen elite" the number of having been read English books and articles about Freddie Mercury and Queen defines the degree of knowledgeability. These people are considered to be fine experts of his life and his activity only because they absorbed some quantity of thick British volumes and videocassettes with pseudo documentary films… In reality the quantity of read books doesn''t add any knowledge on the theme. The other way round - the more you read such books - the less common sense is left, the more despair and depression, the stronger psyche is maimed. The happiest Queen fans ate those who didn''t read such literature having limited only with songs, concerts and clips.
… Zero City is finished by attempt to escape from the city of the main hero. If we can imagine the continuation of this film for Queen fan, it may look like that.
Having escaped from Zero, Varakin occurs in another city, where everything takes place in the same way, then he comes to the third, the forth one… just another time he doesn''t surprised at anything. He calmly greets a naked secretary, listens to the lecture in museum with great interest, and there he will be told about an honorable citizen of the city - Freddie Mercury.
While being a very secretive and close-mouthed man Freddie Mercury never advertised his privacy, never let in on his life and its details, never admitted in homosexuality, he never didn''t keep it in a secret from his sexual orientation being very frank in this question. For his fans knowing nothing about secret bias predilections of their idol till his death in 1991, it was great shock to know about his bents at the end of 70-th, when he stopped hiding his homosexuality and began openly visit gay-clubs and appear on the stage in clothes of "active gay". Freddie mercury was well known in all gay-clubs of the Old and New World, coming to a new city he went to look for new establishments for gays, carrying with him some special reference book for gays as well as his secretary Peter Freestone who was registered instead of him - he didn''t want to upset his parents and fans. His frantic privacy of gay that was carried out by him, his numerous gay-partners didn''t bother him all his life to be in love with one woman, whom he has left all his property, and his lyrics he devoted to his lovers. The main and the last love for him was the barber Jim Hutton. According to his friend''s stories he had hundreds of men, his sexual behaviour and cocaine orgies were from limit the craziest fantastic. He is remembered as about a kind, generous, intelligent and very modest man. He despised marriage and family, he wanted to have a family and children. All his friends say that he was gay while being frank in some questions of homosexuality he was secretive in this respect… What? What is he famous for? Indian origin and homosexual orientation. No, not only by that - he had a strong voice and sang in the group Queen. He organized bright shows, clips and had suits of active gay. Don''t pay attention to stupidities, friend. Let''s go on. The first half of 80-th Freddie Mercury spent mainly in Munich, it was the center of European homosexuality, visiting regularly London''s gay-club "Heaven"…

Down with shame!

According to Kara-Murza, shamelessness is a special technology, which disarms a man and make him more defenceless against manipulation. A man with undermined morals is easily manipulated. The destroying of traditional morals together with a widespread propaganda of sexual dissoluteness destroys all psychological barriers. "The main thing during removing of defence under manipulation isn''t a replacement of one integrated system of values by another one, but that is exactly destroying of the system, depriving a man of all moral landmarks, system of coordinates, where he could know kindness from evil, placing him in an atmosphere of amorality". It is to switch off of the system of navigation on the vessel.
So, for destroying of the conscious it is necessary to "cut" the conception of kindness and evil, having overthrown a man till the level of the animal. In sociology it is said about "a replacement of cultural being by biological". Being encouraged a man for giving in for all his wishes, he is deprived of willpower, made a dependant of his own vices - and as a result made obedient. It was said in "The great inquisitor" - to subjugate all thoughts and feelings of the nation - it is needed to permit sin, and people will be pleased for this permission. Balamut advised: "Keep your ward far from a simple frontier between the following meanings "good and bad". While even in antic epoch Aristotle reminded that the aim of brining up is to love and not to love by a man what is a due.
The literature about Freddie Mercury is an industry of shamelessness, led to that thing that Queen fans will finally loose all elementary conceptions about morals. The world of these books is deprived of any ideas about good and evil, shame and nobility, feelings, love and friendship. I should say that we will speak about not real Freddie but about an artificial image created in artificial reality by propaganda.
It is impossible to call these books as a genre of "gay-literature". Such a literature has its own rules. It describes unisexual love as a sublime, beautiful feeling, and homosexualists as delicate, sensitive people, who can love and value beauty, more moral and aesthetically developed than "ordinary people" do. But, of course, a banal pornography takes place there.
But it''s impossible to call those things, which are described in the books about Freddie Mercury, love - ''cos it is bestiality. Mercury in these books is a swine, obsessed by sex, who wants nothing except constant unisexual acts, change of partners and something like this.
Instead of normal human feelings we see constant scandals, hysteria, fights, sorting things out and endless sex. Only relations with Mart Austin seem like love. These described pictures can''t provoke anything except disgust. Belching, toilets, details of tooth cleaning, washing in shower, sex… A journalist B. Minaev wrote about it as about "destroying of the feeling of ugliness": "To string easily another plot and another one… it is necessary to make this absurd a absolute absurdity, absolute zero".
A Queen fan has to read "these memoirs of those who was close to Freddie", overcoming nausea and disgust. As far as possible it is necessary to make him be delighted with it. Another way is to teach tolerance. And those people who don''t want to see an animal in Freddie will be shut up with hysteric shriek about "a bad attitude to sexual minorities".
A normal feeling of shame and shyness is destroyed. The cover was removed from the most private sides of his life. Some elementary cultural norms, which forbid showing a man in a toilet or feeling sick, are completely destroyed. Besides, it is inspired that it''s all right, quit objectively, normally; it is a description of a man as he is.
We can''t say that this is "the biography of famous sinners". Such a literature tries defending its readers from attempts to imitate this depraved way of life. With many regrets it is described a talented man, died too young because of his highly strungty being, who would do so much… His untimely death should serve young people who suppose that genius is allowed to do everything he wants. And there is no talk about condemnation. There is such a phrase - if you love a man you shouldn''t love his sin. And if you love some creative individual and you are delighted with his talent, you shouldn''t love his alcoholism and drug addiction. You should understand that this all disturbed our hero and did his a very unhappy person… Description of his sufferings, his broken life and lost opportunities should have a sobering up effect and preserve us from his mistakes - saving a great respect to his creativity and individual.
In literature about Freddie Mercury, on the one hand, his way of life is presented as superscandal, immoral and disgusting. On the other hand, we understand that it is possible! It''s a way of life of other people, called gays. Certainly, Freddie died untimely, but because he hadn''t use preservatives. If he''d be more careful he would have be alive. That, which is called "controllable sin", on contemporary language is called "safe sex".
We can''t say that these are "sketches from nature" where "without wrath and passion" the life of a famous man is described in that way as it was in reality, and readers are offered only to read, analyze and make some conclusions.
First of all, it isn''t a nature, but falsification. And that''s just ridiculous to speak about absence of passion, because double standard is too plain. You can be absolutely uneducated or coned if you can''t see a principal difference between giving of "this delicate theme" in the books about Mercury and about Rembo, Kokto, Elton John and other "famous homosexuals". We see persistency and deliberate scandals, reduction of all his life to an endless promiscuity and wild entertainment…
It''s impossible to limit all memoirs about Freddie only to "revelations of abandoned friends" - when these ex-lovers and servants revenge to their famous hosts with scandal exposing.
Neither Hatton, nor Freestone, Minns or Mary Austin have no reasons to blame to Freddie - they said it. But it didn''t disturb them to pour plenty of mud on his coffin. We can''t call it some kind of exposing, because they didn''t presents any evidences. At the same time none of his lover who had abandoned with him with scandals, fighting and bites didn''t write any exposing.
In "normal" biographies it is frequently said about realizing of one''s sinful way of life ''cause in every soul of a talented man there is a right side - otherwise he could create nothing except blobs of malice and hatred. S. Esenin wrote: "If devils nested in the soul, it means angels lived in it". And always such a moment comes when a man takes a glance to his own life and cries with horror: "I''m a swine, there is no excuse to me!" Certainly, some people never confess - But they are flawed, obsessed by pride people.
In the creativity of Queen such terms like blame, shame and repentance were always presented, but they are absolutely wiped out from the propaganda. A world of "Freddie Mercury" is a world where nobody never feel blame for their deeds. And Freddie Mercury is an individual who is absolutely deprived of repentance. Even his awful disease taken as a result of "his way of life" doesn''t teach him. During the whole life he''s never had a moment when he took a glance to his past - and was horrified. And his friends have also never been ashamed. They are seemed to be people whom their doctors removed this conscience under their birth.
Of course, all Queen fans should be brought up in gentle love to sexual minorities. Not just tolerance - but understanding and respect to the dirtiest, basic kinds of homosexual way of life. To that thing that promiscuity can be the way of life, which can be chosen by everyone. Instead of narration about the life of our beloved singer they impose books about peculiarity of gay''s way of life and even directories about gay clubs (we have an example - it is Freestone''s book about Freddie!) on Queen fan. But he has been completely coned and doesn''t notice any substitution. It is inspired that we can live as John Deacon and as Freddie Mercury - and there is no any difference. But to live as Freddie Mercury is cooler. That''s why no book was written about Deacon, while dozens - about Freddie. Because nobody is interested in a man who spend evenings at home reading fairytales to his children. Not by chance some disparaging remarks like "crazy about family" are got in his neck. Really, he is crazy - six children, one woman, ugh, it''s disgusting… Let''s learn to live from Freddie Mercury - no children, no duty, you can devote yourself only to music, sex and cocaine…
And respect and tolerance is inspired only to gays as a community, but not to Freddie Mercury''s individual. Respect exactly to Freddie is absolutely lacking. They can speak any filth about him, sling mud at him, and demonstrate his private life… They can touch him - bit it is prohibited to touch gays.
Logically, this mud should provoke indignation among homosexuals. An ordinary man reads it and says: "Oh, these gays are incredible!" But all this libel on their famous friend, and lie about their rude way of life should be unpleasant to homosexual.
But all these disgusting things are fiercely defended by gays. When little rumble about Hatton''s book arose - the reaction of psychologically healthy man to this gay-pornography could be only negative: nausea and indignation - exactly gays begun defending Jim Hatton. It is profitably for them to create only SUCH image of Freddie Mercury. And any attempt to question it provokes many accusations of "homophobia".
It''s illogically, isn''t it? But the information about Freddie Mercury is a complete "Zero City", complete compatibility. As a result Queen fan''s conscious splinters so much that Freddie is called "gay, drag-user and promiscuous man" and at the same times "the kindest and wonderful man in the world". From outside it seems to be terrible, but for Queen fan it is a norm. I mean, lack of any norms.
Drugs are openly advertised in these books. The fact is that there is a kind of discrepancy - they make up stories about "crime" (absorption of cocaine and ecstasy) and they couldn''t make up "punishment" (arrests, orders, courts, hospitals, premature old age…). There are some stories about baiting against the wall and strangling of Barbara Valentine, but they don''t make any impression. That''s why the following, improbable thesis was introduced: cocaine is harmless! It became evidence that Freddie was healthy before AIDS and gave up using drugs without any problems - giving up using drugs is easier than refusing from chocolate or coffee. As a result, we have another thesis in the style of "Zero City": Freddie wasn''t a drug user, but he used plenty of cocaine.
It turns out that all these years Columbian troops fought against harmless producers of tooth powder; and old man Pablo Escobar sold completely harmless powder too. Pay attention to this phrase - drugs, provoking addiction. Murderer, who murdered nobody…
The biography of any rock-musician using drugs (if we deal with a normal, objective biography) can''t cultivate drugs in its readers. Because we''ll definitely see a story about his life later. About a death of Jimmy Hendrix, arrests of Paul McCartny, cure of Joe Cocker, degradation of Elvis Presley…
In our case it is inspired that… it is possible.
The following stage is an assurance of the whole permission. Freddie Mercury is a man, for whom there weren''t such terms as "it is prohibited", "it''s bad", "stop it". When he wanted to take something - he took it. He wanted to buy - he bought it. He wanted drugs - he used it. He wanted sex - he got it. We see a way of life of a customer, who wants only to buy goods and get pleasure of life… As they say, "do what you want", "take all from your life". A term "will" doesn''t exist. And the theme of reckoning isn''t covered at all or covered very scandalously for decreasing sobering effect on the readers.
Freddie is deprived of human soul, he is a kind of some mask. Unlike from "traditional" biography, which can discern a man in the last sinner, there are no people in these books. There are no individuals. But there are moving and speaking robots. Certainly, it would be silly to demand psychology of Dostoevsky from talentless English journalism and Freestone. But it astonishes that there was no any book with attempt to see a man in Freddie. If the authors allow themselves to make some psychological analysis, it makes from the sides of sex and vulgar freidizm - how Freddie became a homosexual. Even his intellectual interests - painting, antique… - are shown as another kind of consumption - Freddie collected the great masters as someone collected limousines or ties. He lived for the sake of purchases and the most basic entertainment. He haven''t got nothing in his mind except eagerness to entertain, he never lived inner life…
At the same time lack of author''s sensority is astonishing. There is no any sympathy for Freddie as for a man. Nobody regrets that such a handsome man hadn''t got any children. Nobody regrets that his life was ruined, he would do so much if he lived as a man, not as an animal. Nobody regrets about his destiny, because he was lonely and unhappy all his life. It is prohibited to regret Freddie and cry for him as well - it would mean to question the thesis about "a way of life" and a sacrifice for sakes of sacred act of homosexual.
There is no simple respect to his death. In sociology such destroying of "sacrament of death" is considered to be another way of destroying of the conscious, because those things, which are sacred for everyone, are belittled. Freddie''s death is described in mocking and scoffing tones, with binding mention of toilet, etc. It wipes out any possibility of compassion and reflection… His funeral are also shown without any wish to provoke sympathy - it is told as if it was a kind of recycling of rubbish - stuffed into a packet, took away, and burned… But any attempts of appealing to Queen''s fan''s feelings provoke laughter - what a funny sentimentality…
Klave Luis wrote to English teachers: "On one pupil who need treatment from sentimentality there are three pupils who need treatment from lack of sensority… Suppressing sensitivity of a child we only archive that it will be easy for propaganda to con him. Severe feeling shortage should be satiated, but hardened heart doesn''t help against drain-brain.
But the goal is exactly drain-brain, then endorsement of it should be obligatory.
All the same what do they want from Queen fans? To hate Freddie - or to like his way of life? Or to take him as he is?
The main goal is that Queen fan''s conscious should be totally mixed up, deprived of any moral norms.
Heightened scandalous character of these materials isn''t completely clear if we don''t remember for whom it was designed - for Western Queen fans.
The majority of our fans are "a young call-up". These people began to interest in Queen in 90-s, when Freddie died, the group split up, and all mud was slung. When they knew about Freddie, they had to know the whole complex of "objective evidences". Someone "older" also knew about him not earlier than in the second part of 80''s. It happened that Freddie''s death and splitting up of Queen almost coincided with way out the isolation of our country and appearance of detailed information about rock-groups. Our "old mans" also knew almost nothing about Freddie before he''d died and this newspaper exposing had appeared. People was surprised and nothing more - he is gay… So be it!
So we see that our fans aren''t upon what was going on in the fan movement in 80-s. But it was quit different from contemporary one.
Fans were proud of their idols, their reputation and made them high moral needs. Freddie and the other members of the group didn''t present any unpleasant surprises to their fans. They didn''t smoke much, weren''t arrested for keeping drugs, didn''t fight with police… If fans of other rock-groups like some fooling around with drugs and other deeds of their idols, Queen fans were in despair only from one thought that the song "Another one bites the dust" during playing backwards calls to smoke pot. That''s why these gossips were being spread among Queen fans…
The weak men left a fan movement. The rest related to the rumours sceptically, didn''t believe the Gutter press and believe their idols.
And then Freddie''s death came. And they slung all mud on the stunned, shocked Queen fans. Their Freddie and their Queen seemed to be different than they''d thought… All this information was begun to bombard Queen fans - films, articles, books, memoirs of his "friends"… We can imagine ourselves the range of psychological shock… I think it''s unnecessary to explain what it means - rock-idol for a modern man. It can be more than his father or brother. And this idol was crushed, and compromised… Their world was ruined. At the same time fans felt principle difference among Freddie''s individual and creativity - and what rumours are gone round - and couldn''t understand what was going on.
And after that in destroyed and stunned fan-movement many invaders appeared. They were gays and admirers of gay-culture. They pretended themselves Queen fans, but in fact they were only interested in sexual orientation of Freddie. They began to control fan''s minds easily, turned them in homosexual course. In shocked Queen fan movement there were nobody to chuck them out - and fans didn''t realize that these invaders began to command them… Nobody was interested in Queen creativity. Now it was possible to stuff fan''s destroyed conscious with all they want.
Clave Lewis wrote: "We deprive people of their hearts and wait their impressions. We laugh at their nobility and dread that there are a great many scoundrels. We castrate our men and demand offspring from them".

The heroes of our time.

Sociologists say that attempting to change moral orientation marks on a national scale is followed by the annihilation of national heroes and replacing them by new ones. Worthy men object of imitation and admiration are wiped off into dirt by dint of "unmasking" books, broadcasts and articles in the press. Quite often the new heroes would be… sheer bandits.
In our case, the name of Freddie Mercury having been trumped down into mud and utterly destroyed, the heroes were made… out of his milieu.
Under the milieu one implies not everyone of Mercury''s friends. Acquaintances, colleagues and household servants, but a few people who stood close to him during his last years of life and became the main distributors of compromise information - Jim Hatton, Peter Freestone, Mary Austin and others.
It''s hard to find any full analogues of what has happened - the idol of millions being flung mud at, his milieu is glorified in every possible way. Rather on the contrary - biographers sometimes are even bigoted taking the part of the hero and criticizing strongly the people around him. It''s hard to imagine that Elvis Presley''s fans would accept the cult of "Memphis Mafia". Just the other way round, one can find a lot of unmasking publications in the press where those people are directly accused of maltreating Elvis and having virtually overworked him to death. The attempt of introducing the cult of Joko Ono in the circles of Beatles'' fans also hasn''t been a particular success. The books and articles about John Lennon''s "guardian angel" were opposed by biting books and articles about the "straggler and torturer" of the above-mentioned man. And Joko Ono''s obtrusive self-advertising invoked and goes on invoking mocks among Beatles'' fans themselves.
Here we do not undertaken a slightest attempt to doubt the crystal honesty and angelic innocence of the "Garden-Lodge Mafia". Moreover, rough-hewed fans at the slightest attempt of criticizing start screaming - "Don''t dare touch them! They were near Freddie!"
It is a curious exception out of the rules. Just the other way round, the milieu get a rati