History of western rock-music

History of western rock-music knows no analogies to the persecution of Freddie Mercury.

No one has ever been so ruthlessly and undeservingly mocked and scoffed at. There's no such famous person that has been blamed in so many disgusting crimes without any proofs.

Western society is very proud of concept of "presumption of innocence". The law reads: a man is considered to be innocent until his fault is proved in court. Withal it says that the accused one isn't supposed to prove his innocence, his fault is supposed to be proven to him.

To continue usage of judicial terminology we should mention such a concept as alibi. It means that a person is released from any suspicions of committing a crime, if he/she is able to prove that he/she happened to be somewhere else at the time the crime has taken place in case there are witnesses ready to confirm it.

Freddie Mercury had a 100% alibi. Tens and even hundreds of people can attest that at the very hours and minutes when he was ostensibly smelling cocaine and drowning in depravity at gay-clubs, he was seen in studious and at concert platforms, at rehearsals and in hotels, in theatres and at home. When it comes to Freddie Mercury all the western laws are quite; that reminds of justice of Stalin's epoch when anyone could have been arrested or even executed on basis of an anonymous denunciation.

For almost twenty years British and American special services had been collecting proofs of John Lennon financing Irish terrorists, and in conclusion of a long-time research the information was published. They knew perfectly well they wouldn't have been believed without weighty proofs and would have been accused of slandering about a great man. Albeit it is possible to about say anything about Mercury - anything but truth.

No one pays attention to the rudest violation of political correctness. If we consider Freddie to be gay, he'll suit the character of a famous joke, describing dictatorship of minorities, about a one-legged, lesbian and Mormon African-American women infected with AIDS as a future president of the USA. He would be referred to minority in forth power: a homosexual Parse, AIDS-infected Zoroastrian. But the western publicity recollects rights only when it is ordered to do so.

Though years go by Freddie's still spoken about as an administrative criminal. "He has always shocked society", "his way of life left far behind generally accepted norms of decency", " he is known for his extravagant parties", "he became the gay-icon of 80's", " his life was the realization of the maddest fantasies", "his death was an objective ending of his mad life" etc. And mercifully add: "But he has been forgiven for everything after his dearth".

Oh, they have forgiven him . What for I wonder? Whom has he offended or insulted in his life? What disgusting songs has he sung? What law has he broken? Who has suffered from his art? Who has committed a crime or started doing drugs because of his music?

Even if we believe slandering about Freddie, we'll still have to acknowledge that he has done no evil and he has harmed only himself. Besides everything that is being "incriminated" to Freddie is being considered neither a sin nor a crime nowadays.

Nevertheless all the imaginary Freddie's sins can't be compared to the real sins of his colleagues.

Why don't we take a look at rock-singers, on whose background Freddie Mercury was portrayed as a vicious celebrity?

Let us start with the sacred guru of rock - John Lennon. This man is considered to be a prophet, a great preacher of love and peace, almost a saint. And here's a track record of this peacemaker .

Arrests for drug abuse, drunken parties, numerous fights in public places (during one of them Stuart Sutcliffe was fatally wounded; in others many people were crippled). Open propaganda of marijuana and LSD. Public cussing, insulting sayings addressed to enclosing people, to government institutions, monarchy, church. Inappropriate recalls about Christianity, public insults to Catholic nuns, outrage of the crucifixion, malicious hooliganism. Taking pictures being nude, shooting porno. Dynamic participation in activity of totalitarian sects "Transcendental Meditation" and "Society of Consciousness of Krishna". Opened sympathy to such "great humanists" as Mao Zedong, Carl Marks, Che Guevara. Financing of international terrorism. In youth - rubber's hold ups on passers-by.

Genial creativity of "The Beatles" didn't redound to moral upbringing of the youth.

A rare concert went without wounded ones. Amongst fans of "The Beatles" it gradually became trendy to listen to band's music having smoked marijuana or being pumped up with LSD. It's impossible to count all the victims of such leisure. In 1965 in Los-Angeles a shocking ritual murder based on Beatle mania was committed.

A satanic gang of hippie fans of "The Beatles" led by Charles Manson burst into Roman Polanski's villa and atrociously killed six people including producer's wife Sharon Tate, who was on the ninth month of pregnancy. Juvenile fans castrated the men, took out of the woman's womb her child and cut his head of. Using victims' blood they wrote lyrics of "The Beatles" mixed with satanic symbols. In court they claimed they were inspired by the song "Revolution #9".

Not bad for a saint! Everything's proved by documentaries! Lennon's biographers prefer not to mention these facts or to describe them in indirect and delicate manner along with discourse about genius's nature, about a non-standard way of behaviour of a great personality, about a desire to stand out of crowd, about self-expression . The cruellest definition given to Lennon was "genial hooligan".

Jim Morrison's track record contains drug abuse, opened exhortation of using narcotics. Hooliganism, ribaldry, deformity, previous convictions. Propaganda of hatred and violence, participation in satanic rituals . However no one, but Christian publicity, criticises him. In Olive Stone's movie "The Doors" Morrison's vices are even being shown attractively.

In order for you to understand what double-standard is, I offer you a passage from an article about Jim Morrison, written by the same Mr. Galin who has showered with insults and mix with dirt Freddie Mercury:

" . His charisma and creative genius refracts in his music, lyrics and poetry as brightly as 30 years ago. He wasn't only the lead-singer of "The Doors" . talented showmen and prolific composer, original producer and gifted writer, but before all a genial poet. His heritage startles . " .

Can you feel the difference?

. Curt Kobein - drug abuse, disgraceful behaviour, foul language, appeals to the usage of narcotics, violence and suicides, propaganda of Satanism and hatred to surrounding world. Depravity, including homosexuality. Doing drugs right at concerts, rout of equipment. Suicide was a final for a worthy life. But he couldn't leave by himself; he called his admirers to follow him into "nirvana". The call was heard and after Kobein's death world was overwhelmed with suicides amongst his fans. And his widow Courtney Love had to run away with her child, because fans were doing drugs near the walls of her house and throwing used syringes into the yard.

But if you open any book about Curt Kobein you'll see a cool guy, bright, talented personality, who's thrown a call to hypocrite society . And no speculations about homosexual experiences of his youth!

We can continue talking forever about rock-singers preaching violence, death and hatred. About concerts turned into sessions of mass psychosis and sadomasochistic shows. About outrageous pranks on stage and fighting in audience. About numerous murders and suicides committed because of rock. About cemeteries overfilled with wretched slaves of rock-idols.

But everyone's forgiven. It's impossible to imagine a biography of any rock-musician, written in Rick Sky's manner. Only Freddie Mercury is being showered with new dirt again and again!

Shows made by "Queen" were declared shocking and scandalous - what for? For roses with preliminarily removed thorns that Freddie used to throw into audience? For champagne that he used to drink on stage wishing health to respectable onlookers? For popcorn he served to spectators? For costumes incomprehensible to the uninitiated? Other singers were allowed to use foul language on stage, to arrange black sermons, ruin equipment, denude naked back, to water onlookers with their urine, throw bowels into audience, but Freddie was getting slaps in face for his beautiful and chaste shows!

You'll be told that Freddie has been acknowledge as a great musician, that criticism of his creativity has been stopped after his death, that "Queen" has taken an honourable place and has even been included into a book with quick reference "Britain" along with "The Beatles" and "The Rolling Stones", that many famous singers denominate Freddie as their teacher . You'll be told a lot, but you should know that those words are worthless. England has shown its respect to Freddie Mercury to the whole world.

Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon ordered a monument for their deceased friend. They paid their own money and government only had to give a permission to install it. That was very important to them, because it was unknown where Freddie's tomb was situated, his friends and fans had no place to come to.

During four years musicians visited all governmental and London institutions and got a refusal everywhere. All London parks and squares turned down their request. And the heads of Ealing College, where Freddie studied, even scoffed at the musicians - they allowed installing the monument at . the parking lots! During all that time the monument stood in Brian May's yard - there was no place for it in whole England. With English restraint he said: "We were shocked by refusal of England. Freddie had done so much for this country . " The monument was installed in Swiss town Montreux.

Biographers explain this incident by the difficulties London institutions could have met with massive fans' arriving. Nevertheless those difficulties didn't prevent them from installing a monument to "The Beatles". A monument to John Lennon is projecting to be installed on Trafalgar Square beside Nelson, one more monument is situated in Cuba as a sign of gratitude for his sympathy for the lefts parties, withal Liverpool has been turned into museum of "The Beatles" long time ago.

There are lifetime monuments to Sophia Loren and Michael Jackson in the USA. There are a lot of lifetime statues of various Hollywood actors. A monument to Elvis Presley was installed.

Why are they better than Freddie?

Naturally, biographers don't speak about Lennon; otherwise the double standard would have been too noticeable. They describe the problems the heads of Paris faced with Jim Morrison's tomb and supposedly London heads were eager to evade such difficulties.

This comparison is mendacious and incorrect. Jim Morrison had nothing to do with French culture: he was an American singer and was buried in Paris just because had a misfortune to die in this city and his relatives or friends didn't care about sending his body to his motherland.

His tomb creates problems, because Morrison was a representative of drug-culture, and a lot of his fans differ by corresponding behaviour.

On the contrary Freddie Mercury in spite of his Parse's origin is an integral part of British culture, he is the greatest musician in newest history of this country. His fans haven't established themselves by antisocial behaviour. Have they disturbed Montreux's government or city-dwellers during last five years since the monument has been installed?

Freddie Mercury's monument would have brought large sums of money into London's treasury, but desire to humiliate even the memory of this man is more important than money!

Now, is it worth saying that no memorial desk has been installed in honour of Freddie Mercury? There is nothing dedicated to him either on houses he lived in, or in college he studied at! There were no official representatives at any activities devoted to commemoration of his memory, amongst tens of thousand wreaths sent from various celebrities and common people there were no official ones! Nine out of each ten British musical encyclopaedias have no information on "Queen" or Freddie Mercury, while "The Beatles", "The Rolling Stones" and their leaders are included everywhere! And those few encyclopaedias that mention "Queen" describe Freddie as a mad homosexual! Whilst John Lennon is clamed to be an author of touching songs about peace and love, as though Freddie Mercury's repertoire has no such masterpieces!

Freddie and "Queen" haven't been getting too many prizes. During twenty years of a brilliant career the band that implemented a revolution in rock-music and video art got only a couple of British premiums. A great number of mediocre singers have got about five-six "Grammy" and Freddie wasn't prized with it even once. Merely one of genial "Queen" videos - "Innuendo" rewarded. In 1987 EMI published a humiliating article in British press and after enumerating all band's achievements in year 1986, including recognisance of "Queen" and Freddie Mercury as the best British group and the best singer respectively, it ironically added: "And once again "Queen" hasn't got the reward of British Phonographic Industry". Moreover the group wasn't even mentioned at the ceremony! "Queen" was rewarded only in 1990 when the discrimination of such a talented and popular group started making publicity grumble, and Freddie was dying of AIDS.

The officials didn't notice Freddie and his group. Pope of Rome was in a habit of meeting with rock-musicians, but kept ignoring "Queen" and prohibited their concert in Vatican. Is Vatican an inappropriate place for rock-concerts?

No it isn't. Numerous concerts, including non-Christian ones, were held in Vatican!

The Queen Elizabeth paid no attention to the band that brought a worldwide glory to British rock-music and made Great Britain the motherland of video-clips. Withal Freddie Mercury's attitude towards Her Majesty and monarchy was always very reverent. Moreover each concert "Queen" would end by playing a rock-version hymn "God Save the Queen", and English youth would sing along the lines familiar since childhood. That was a very touching and patriotic spectacle.

However the Queen kept silence. She didn't even send condolences on Freddie's death.

Is recognition of rock-music considered to be ignominious for a Queen?

No. With her own hands she presented awards to "The Beatles" notwithstanding drug abuse spread amongst their fans and victims at their concerts. She wasn't embarrassed with the laureates smoking marijuana right in a restroom of the Buckingham Palace. In future she had to pay for her populism: Lennon preferred anarchy, inveighed the Queen and turned back the award.

Elton John was distinguished by knightly rank in spite of homosexual predilections, drunken parties and sexual scandals. Ex-member of "the Beatles" Paul McCartney became a knight in spite of his arrests for transportation of drugs. Not so long ago Mick Jagger was almost awarded with this rank . His track record impresses: a lecher, a drug abuser with a couple of previous convictions, a satanist. His fans were harmed at his concerts; the most scandalous one was in the USA when specially invited activists from a satanic organisation "Hell's Angels" conceived a fight, beaten up to death a young African American and wounded tens of spectators. Mick Jagger didn't become a British knight just because a lady started a judicial proceeding demanding recognition of his child and alimonies. Jagger's fatherhood was proved and provoked a grandiose scandal, thus the shamed Queen had to give a refusal to an unlucky Casanova.

Howbeit Her Majesty didn't even mark "Queen" with a nice word, let alone rewards! The group named as "national institution of England"! Queen's intercession could have helped Freddie and make most of his enemies change their tone!

So what's the problem? Obviously the answer can't be homosexuality, because none of homosexual celebrities, deceased in past few years of different reasons including AIDS, hasn't been treated with such an indignity - nothing similar to the hysterics inflated around Freddie's death took place. And the problem can't be connected to his creativity - others were forgiven for lots of disgusting things . Especially if you consider the fact of Freddie's innocence .

Nowadays, when "Queen" is acknowledged as rock's classics, it's hard to imagine what these people have had to go throw on their way to glory. Hundreds of books and articles have been written about "Queen phenomenon" and none about "phenomenon of persecution of "Queen".

Meanwhile the events surrounding "Queen" have no analogies; such odium, ostracism and discrimination hasn't been experienced by any of western rock-groups. Situation around "Queen" can only be compared to persecution of "informal" musicians in Soviet Union.

With one exception. West isn't Soviet Union. No one can cancel freedom, competition and private property. And no one has a right to prohibit someone to perform as long as the singer isn't breaking the law and there are people eager to pay money for his art. There are always businessmen eager to invest money into something that might be profitable. But everything possible for annihilation of a musician under conditions of a free world has been done. Absence of advertisement, massive attack through press, streams of slander and insults - "Queen" has got a greatest share of this all, a share that would have been enough for a hundred of rock-bands.

Any famous rock-group experienced a period, when being unknown it had to strive for recognition, but "Queen" had to lead a real battle for survival and not only in the beginning of it's career, but also at the peak of it's fame.

Most of popular musical projects are the results of felicitous advertising, while "Queen" has achieved success exceptionally due to their own energy and talent in spite of active resistance of show-business sharks. The band was being drowned without any disguise.

During first two years record companies were ignoring them. With a great difficulty the group got a possibility to take the advantage of the equipment of a company, known as "De Lane Lea", in return for a musical favour; later they managed to conclude a contract with "Trident". They were allowed to work in studio only during the "dead" time, mainly at night and early in the mornings. The company was cruelly exploiting them, arrogating almost all the money and trying to strangle the group in every possible way.

And only after success of their third album the group managed to conclude a new contract. Two of their previous albums were prodigiously popular, Mercury's songs "Seven Seas of Rhye" and "Killer Queen" became national hits, "Killer Queen" was avowed as the best British song in 1974 and was marked with a prestigious award of Ivor Novello.

According to laws of the western show business after such a success the best producers from both continents were supposed to be competing for a right to conclude a contract with the lucky beginners. Nevertheless there was no initiating from their side. Even after miraculous success of the "Bohemian Rhapsody" Freddie was treated as a leper. Only discrete courageous people like Roy Thomas Baker or "EMI" dare to work with "Queen".

Their first album wasn't "noticed" by press. According to the best Soviet traditions group's debut single "Keep Yourself Alive" was rejected by art counsel of British radio for five (!) times. Starting with the second album the group was "noticed" but in a very original way - it was showered with obloquy, and since that moment dirt about "Queen" became a long-time norm for their relations with press. Here is a small list of recalls about "Queen" from different years (the quotations are given in "back translation"):

"That is not a group, but a bucket of urine".

"This man is an ass" (this one is about Freddie).

"The only emotion this group evokes is the desire to cut Brian May's hair".

About album "Jazz": "If you've got a deaf relative - here is a present for him for Christmas".

"Freddie's portrait may be placed on a tee-short with an inscription: "Art-rock is shit".

"If this group achieves anything I'll eat my hat . it seems that "Queen" had overdone -they've got neither depth, nor mood"

"Here are the refugees of glam-rock. Poor and overloaded album (i.e. "Queen2"). If this group is our future hope, were committing a rock'n'roll suicide".

" . they've got to cut of laces".

" . . An infinite self-enjoyment is observed from the first song to the last".

"Here are three more minutes of self-thrilled, overloaded with effects banality . ".

"If that is the advertisement for their new album it needs a lot of sulphuric acid"

"False music of a false group".

" . Old, fizzled out, falling to parts charlatans".

Here's a recall seemingly stolen from an old Soviet newspaper:

"Queen" shows - are the celebrations of wealth rock".

Everything said above doesn't include numerous personal insults into Freddie's address.

Certainly, tastes differ, but you'll have to agree that the group doesn't deserve such recalls.

Such words cannot be explained by a misunderstanding or a state of shock caused by novelty. As years pass press is getting used to the groups that might be irritating it in the beginning, but only "Queen" has always been evoking permanent hatred.

Years were going by, and "Queen" was constantly changing and perfecting itself, the mannered and pompous style of early years was left behind, but nothing helped. "Queen" kept changing costumes and haircuts, image and music, but press's attitude remained the same. Members of "Queen" were bad with long and short hair, in luxuriant and simple suits, in gowns and jeans. The situation reminded of a well-known children's poem about a grandfather, his grandson and a donkey - it didn't matter what Freddie was doing, it was all wrong.

At first Mercury was inveighed for extravagant suits, was considered to be gay and was called a bourgeois ass, whilst Erick Clapton in his modest jeans was exalted. Hardly had Mercury come to stage wearing jeans and a simple tee-short, he was immediately named a gay-symbol.

All members of "Queen" were insulted the same way for short haircuts. Brian May was the only one to keep his hairstyle and before long critics from press suggested to shorten his hair, reminding of Soviet police of Brejnev's epoch, that used to cut hair of the "informal" youth.

Referat: Istoria cinematografului - pe ani Referat: Generatia asteptata - IIFF Anonimul - film

Obviously there were nice recalls, but each favourable review was followed by tens of articles containing severe criticism.

Biographers repeat that luxuriant and aristocratic Mercury's style wasn't understood. This statement has its share of truth; western press cannot stand rock-singers differing from garbage dump workers. In its time "Roxy Music" and Brian Ferry were attacked the same way. Finally Ferry was acknowledged as a master, but "Queen" was being persecuted till Mercury's death.

Notwithstanding press's efforts the popularity of "Queen" kept growing each year. There was no free space at their concerts; albums were selling out as hot pies. Supposedly press should have been taking in account public opinion and business success of the hated group and should have changed its tone, but even at the peak of its glory "Queen" kept on getting slaps in the face. It seemed that press wasn't noticing that its work was worthless. An amusing division of labour took place: critics were reviling albums and people were buying them. The stable and senseless hatred turned into a successful advertisement without press's knowledge.

Only Freddie Mercury's death stopped the persecution. Nevertheless an overdue recognition of Freddie's professional merits was overcompensated by a monstrous outrage to his memory. Mercury's death hasn't stopped obloquy; on the contrary since that moment any borders of slander disappeared. It might seem that gossip about deceased Freddie should have stopped. Oh, no - years go by, but they still cannot calm down and keep on kindling fans' minds with new disgusting rumours again and again.

Most explorers of "Queen" had to acknowledge "difficult", "strained", "absent" relations with press, but no intelligible explanation was given. Members of "Queen" used to speak about a "specific" attitude towards their creativity. Brian May said, that for a long time they stayed unrecognised, then for a long time nobody paid attention to them, and then everybody wanted to destroy them. Maybe it was not so bad for their start. The mass-media tried their best inventing curses for the group. And only after "Shear heart attack" this attitude started to change. Those critics were painful for the musicians. May says, that other artists feel the same even if they pretend not to pay attention to this. Of course, there are different kind of unpleasantness, but it was so terrible for them when they were called hill of shit However, according to May, at the exception of the mass-media, everything went on normally. "Queen" had good sales, and by the time of its release the group had its first successful concerts thus gaining experience and receiving its wn audience before the attacks of the mass-media. And this successful start was due to their good preparation.

Brian May also says that there are a lot of small tricks in the relations between the musician and the mass-media, and those tricks almost inevitably turn against the musician. In the case of "Queen" it happened at the earliest stage, so they cannot be considered as a typical example. In most cases, according to May, it is very easy to foresee the character of the reviews - positives as well as negatives. The mass-media's approach is very narrow-minded: if somebody is successful, then his art is worth of nothing. At first they thought it necessary to communicate with the mass-media, to talk with everybody. Later the rich experience with such communications has shown that the reality was quite different. If somebody said openly that he hated a musician and didn't see anything valuable in his art, in nine cases out of ten it would be irrational to try making him appreciate this art; every pressman writes what he believes true. The members of "Queen" had a strong reputation of people who refuse to meet the journalists, but this opinion was wrong - when they had time, they could meet the press. But of course, nobody wanted to see those, who systematically tried to destroy the group with unjustified critics.

Brian May clearly described the gist of the conflict between "Queen" and press - it didn't matter whether the group was worthy or not, someone ordered to destroy it by baseless cavils. Mercury talked about the same inequitable, dishonest criticism, implemented according to a principle "just to say something nasty".

And Freddie said:

We were always a sitting target in the press because we became popular so quickly. But, you know, we spent two years putting our act together It destroys the soul to hear that you're all hype, that you have no talent, and that your whole career has been contrived. I was never too keen on the British music press. They've called us a supermarket hype, and they used to suggest that we didn't write our own songs. When the whole point of Queen was to be original.

I'm the first to accept fair criticism. But the dishonest reviews-where people haven't done their homework - I just tear them up. I do get annoyed when up-and-coming journalists put themselves above the artist.

I don't care what the journalists say, we achieved our own identity after Queen II. As for the Beach Boys or Led Zeppelin comparisons: it's the combination of all those influences which means Queen. We were disliked by the press in the early days because they couldn't put their finger on us, and that was the case with Zeppelin as well.

The thing is, I believe in personalities, not papers. I'm not interested in us versus the NME, I'm just here talking to you. People do think that because I don't do interviews, I've got this thing about the press. And it's not true.

I'm a very hated person, but I hate the Press as well. So that goes both ways, but to me I think I've learned to".

Brian May explained Freddie's reluctance to meet press by him being tired with the wrong image of "Queen", as well as by his personal fatigue. The people who met Freddie after reading newspapers, as a rule were surprised.

Freddie, tired of persecution, reacted to new provocative questions by telling the journalist from "The Sun": 'What do you want to hear? That I deal cocaine?'" "Refuting a false interview published in "The Sun", in which he ostensibly confessed his homosexuality, Mercury declared: I was completely misquoted. But from the beginning, the press have always written whatever they wanted about Queen, and they can get away with it.

In one of his interviews he said, that everyone of them had his own weapon and that they could survive only if they were worth of something.

Theme of surviving became a necessity for "Queen", because their entire career was a "never ending fight" .

Brian May wasn't right, when as other members of "Queen" with a reticence and a lack of desire to make their problems open to publicity said that except of the relations with press everything was going the right way. A situation, in which a western rock-group creating national hits and albums receiving first prizes in all hit parades lives in poverty, isn't quite normal. May claimed they lived in tiny rooms without a penny in a pocket for a long time.

Here's what Freddie said:

"At one point, two or three years after we began, we nearly disbanded. We felt It wasn't working, there were too many sharks in the business and It was all getting too much for us. But something inside us kept us going and we learned from our experiences, good and badWe didn't make any money until the fourth album, 'Night at the Opera'. Most of our income was consumed by litigation and things like that."

A western musician, whose song comes to first places in hit parades, next morning, wakes up rich and famous. He earns enough of money to buy a house and a new limousine. Freddie managed to acquire a decent apartment only in 1976 after the fifth album was issued, and in1981 he was able to buy a house. Large sums of money came to him only in 80-s. "Queen" fairly named their first ten years a "period of hardships and trials".

For comparison: "The Beatles" were unknown for first two years, but during the next year they were widely advertised, millions of fans followed them and millions of pounds were on their personal accounts.

Is "Queen" worse than "The Beatles" in any way?

Press has always been looking for a cause to gibe at "Queen". In 1987 video-clip "Bicycle race" was widely jeered at for naked racers, concealed by special effects. The group was blamed for exploitation of sex and pornography. Other rather chaste "sexual" songs didn't escape accusations of obscenity. It's amusing, that the situation described above didn't take place in XIX century, but during an epoch of wide spread erotica and pornography. Western press, movies and TV programs were full of naked women, they became a trademark of "The Sun", and sex was turned into a usual topic for discussions. However what was allowed to everyone wasn't allowed to "Queen".

In 1980 Mercury's persona became an object for jibes due to his new haircut and moustache. In 1981 "Queen" was condemned for gigs in Argentina and Brasilia; Argentina's military regime served as a cause for cavils. After group's performance in South Africa a scandal of a level of "komsomol hysterics" in the USSR was kindled. "Queen" was called a "gathering of charlatans", and had to pay a huge penalty; besides it was included into the black list of U.N.O., which hadn't happened to any western rock-group since the appearance of rock-music.

A couple of their video-clips were prohibited to be translated on TV. MTV drowned in lechery and profanity forbade video-clip "I Want to Break Free" for homosexuality, and "Body Language" for depravity. Mercury's solo video-clip "Living on My Own" was prohibited for transvestism. The hysterics aroused around "I Want to Break Free" could have been compared to the times of Mercury's appearance with moustache .

In 1985 "Queen" performed at a charitable action "Live Aid". The most famous rock-concert in history was organised in Great Britain and the USA for the sake of the starving in Ethiopia and was being translated in tens of countries. "Queen" was invited to attract attention to the action and to persuade TV companies of various countries to connect to the worldwide satellite translation. Peter Hougen fairly mentioned that if a group with an indisputable popularity beyond western world existed, it was "Queen". After some hesitation and long suasions the group acceded and its performance was brilliant, it has outshone others; according to public recognition the group managed to promote action's success better then anyone else. During a 20-minute performance organisers gained a couple of millions of dollars. Bob Geldof, action's author, gained inviting "Queen" .

Do you believe the group was thanked? No way! Bob Geldof's gratitude was expressed by saying thet Freddie was just being himself - just showing off in front of the whole world. And after the release of new single "One Vision" press accused group of . gambling on charity concert! That time Roger Taylor was as furious as never before, he was shocked, when he came over that in press. He said that they were wrongly interpreted, and he felt insulted by that. Some PR-man made a dirty job. Taylor felt really shocked after reading that.

Brian May reasonably mentioned, that they did a lot for charity organisations, but if they didn't work for profits, they could never survive until the next "Live Aid". It was impossible to consider "Queen" as a purely charity body. They were a part of musical business. He also reminded that the income from the single "Is This the World We Created?" was transmitted to the "Fund of children salvation", - surely press didn't pay any attention to that fact.

How insolent is that? Seemingly the matter occurred in western society, but not in the USSR during the epoch of developed socialism, however, people were supposed to explain to publicity why they weren't in a habit of transmitting all their earnings to "Fund of Peace"!

It's easy to understand the reasons for the new hysterics. The matter was that the performance at "Live Aid" became a true triumph for "Queen". That was the most serious "advertising" in group's history. Since that moment millions of people started listening to "Queen", and according to researchers - "everyone understood how good was this group". "Greatest Hits" won the forth prize in the chart of most popular albums of all times and peoples! Group's career approached a turning point. Press's efforts turned out to be useless because of "Live Aid". Geldof's careless mistake had to be urgently corrected by a new scandal.

Here are some reviews on "Live Aid" from all Mercury's biographers as if they were writing at a behest: "This action caused a lot of noise, and perhaps, even saved a couple of lives . " It's amazing how such a caddish and scornful tone was used to describe the largest and most noble action in the history of western rock-music. Could "Queen" be an appropriate reason to consider "Live Aid" to be a waste of time?

An awkward feeling followed me while I was reading history of "Queen" as if I had mixed up countries and the events were taking place in the USSR. The same public lashings at trade-union gatherings, convictions of materialism, bourgeois luxury and nonworking incomes, devastative articles in "Pravda's" style and nightmarish art councils, punishments for discrepancy with ideas of "civil rights", hysterics because of communication with "rotten regimens" and "objectionable elements", accusations of eroticism, prohibition of creative activity for "immorality", and usage of slander and anonymous letters as bases for persecution completes the resemblance.

Finally the group had to leave the country. They left England, because they weren't able to pay awful taxes being demanded from them. A lot of British groups had to work in other countries for the same reasons, but only "Queen" had to fight not for profits, but for its existence.

Does this fact signify that even English tax services were working to devastate the group?

Oh, well. England didn't do justice to "Queen" - it shouldn't have been a big problem. A promised land for all the unclaimed talents exists. And the businessmen of the richest show business have not once enticed English singers and actors. Could they possibly miss out on such a talented and perspective group?

They could.

Since the first appearance of "Queen" in the USA in 1975 the group was enormously successful this country. Tickets to their concerts were selling out, albums were immediately bought up, and numbers of their fans were increasing in geometric progression. With proper advertising they could have brought mad profits to businessmen in the USA - so why weren't they invited to this country?

On the contrary comparing to America England's attitude towards "Queen" was wonderful. Most serious problems with advertising new albums and video-clips occurred in the USA. American managers kept trying their best to fail "Queen" projects in this country; it became the hearth of hysterics about group's immorality and its leader; "Queen" had to deal with cruel hunt and direct prohibitions of some of its songs and video-clips in the USA. American press particularly hated "Queen" and managed to fail a couple of its projects, such as "Hot Space". "Queen" members themselves had to acknowledged that they couldn't find common language with American producers. Their greatest achievements were cooperation with "Electra" and releasing sound tracks to "Flash Gordon" and "The Highlander" (all American press tried to fail the renting of those movies). Finally after 1983 Mercury, having sold his apartment in New York a year before, ceased to appear in the USA notwithstanding huge popularity of "Queen" in this country (wide spread phrases in literature about Mercury, stating that "Queen" didn't appeal to American publicity aren't corresponding the truth). It's likely that he was forced to that desperate step.

What's the matter? It surely has nothing to do with "Queen" being a foreign group. "The Beatles" had no problems in the USA. Moreover ambitious Lennon refused to perform in the USA until his group won the first prize. There were more commercial projects increasing their popularity in America than in England, thus the group started enjoying transoceanic tours - they were paid well and advertised well. "The Beatles" could have even taken Elvis Presley's place. Everyone would have been happy if they had a desire to stay in the USA.

Meanwhile from a professional point of view "Queen" was much stronger than "The Beatles". They wrote a variety of lyrics including interesting and serious texts, and monotonous shows of "The Beatles" couldn't handle any comparison with brilliant "Queen" shows. After all, with all respect to John Lennon's talent, he couldn't have been equalled to Freddie Mercury either in education or in rock-music, either as a dancer or as a showman. So there are must be other reasons.

In 1985 in an interview at London's "Radio -1" Freddie Mercury made a sincere statement about his problems in show business. When he told the journalist, that he was not a nice man, but rather a tough one in show-biz, the interviewer considered that to be a joke and a bravado. To this Freddie answered seriously that the journalist had to be merciless, that himself was a cruel man. Taking into consideration his experience, accumulated in this business, he could understand the existing situation. With this he got embittered, while not really wanting to do it. But it was impossible to become a bitter man, without it the group was doomed to loose. They had to be inaccessible from the very start of their career, otherwise they could be easily destroyed. And Freddie said that the higher was his position on the steps of success, the more problem he had, the more serious were those problems, and the more sophisticated and perfidious traps were put around him. But this was his ultimate goal. He didn't pay attention, whether the mass-media was in love with him or not, he just told them about the real situation in this field of business. He prevented everybody who wanted to work in this business, that his way to the success wouldn't be easy

In that interview Freddie was as sincere as never. In fact he confessed that his career reminds of hostilities. By the way in 1985 he was already rich and famous, "Queen" became one of the most popular rock-groups in the world, many considered it an honour to cooperate with it. It might seem that all the trials has been left in youth. But the reality's different.

Brian May covering their work with "The Highlander" said about Mulkahy: He's a brave man . That was quite a brave thing to do. Not many people can actually get away with that, because we're a sealed unit, and if anyone comes along it's hard for them to fit in, but it was great . Those words were refer to year 1986, when "Queen" was on the highest peak of its fame!

Not once the members of "Queen" were ready to split up - they were tired of infinite struggle and non-stop persecution. Freddie Mercury's incredible talent, willpower, leadership and the unity of the group, not willing to give up, saved "Queen". It is considered that two mad men are able to turn the world upside down. "Queen" consisted of four of them .

Some researchers conducted curious parallels between "Queen" and a scandalously known punk-group "Sex Pistols". It is naturally that the matter should be not in the similarity, on the contrary, "Queen" has been claimed to be an antithesis to punk, moreover exquisite and well-mannered Freddie Mercury had nothing common with vile, illiterate lout and abuser of foul language Sid Vishes, who was considered to be a freak even by punks (Freddie himself openly named Vishes "Mister Mad"). The similarity is different - it's all in awful relations with press and alike scandalous attitude towards personalities of Vishes and Mercury. There was on problem - Sid Vishes and his colleagues could have been arrested for fraudulent hooliganism and police could stop their concerts on legal bases. That was impossible with "Queen" - they never broke the law. Thus Freddie was placed in one line with punk criminals - what for?

Of course, money, fame, millions of admirers and recognition followed them, but how high was the price?! How much had those people to go through on their way to glory?! What a terrible war were they leading until Freddie's death?!

Speaking about money. In books about Mercury the subject of his fantastic richness is constantly discussed. But facts establish that roomers about his gigantic wealth are strongly exaggerated.

Total sum of Mercury's property, earned during 20 years of his career, doesn't exceed 28 million pounds sterling. It varies from 42 to 45 million US dollars depending on course of the pound. How much is that? Of course, this enormous sum is enough to lead a life of a millionaire, but it's very small for a singer of Mercury's level. That's a tiny sum for a world-famous western rock-star, whose concerts gather hundreds of thousands of spectators, whose albums are being sold out by millions of editions. He was to earn each year as much money as he had earned during all his life. Considering that Freddie worked as hard as a slave at a plantation for 14-16 hours per day, he should have become a billionaire. For comparison, Michael Jackson's fortune is in about 40 times greater than Mercury's. Even if we consider that Jackson's career has been lasting for 30 years already and he's a solo singer, which means that he doesn't have to share with a rock-group, the gap impresses, especially if we estimate Mercury's and Jackson's levels. Such ordinary American pop-groups as "N'Sync" or "Dave Matthews Band" earn 58-59 millions of dollars per year and Tina Turner earned 108 millions of dollars only for year 2000. Paul McCartney's personal fortune exceeds a milliard pounds of sterling, Elton John's - 240,000,000 pounds, Mick Jagger's - 200,000,000 pounds.

In 1984 covering his unlucky cooperation with Michael Jackson, Freddie said playfully: It's all a question of time because we never seem to be together at the same time. Just think, I could have been on 'Thriller'. Think of the royalties I've missed out on".

Considering Freddie's attitude towards money and his generosity, these words might be perceived not too seriously. But occasionally Freddie confessed .

So if he had only taken part in Jackson's album singing along, he would have earned more than for his own albums and concerts! Withal in 1984 Freddie Mercury was a rich and world-famous singer, one of the most popular rock celebrities in England and in the whole world! But he earns less than some voiceless protégé of a big American boss, and comparing to any Hollywood star - he's just poor!

It means, that he's not by the "feeding trough". It means, that talent, popularity and commercial success aren't so important, that there's someone deciding who is supposed to become an idol for millions, to possess villas and limousines, and who's supposed to stay silent, to forget about career and live in a kennel. And Freddie Mercury achieved everything in his life only due to his incredible talent and persistence. His career and "Queen" - are miracles.

Didn't he deserve more?

Those who consider, that he came to music only because of money, fame and realization of his own ambitions, are completely wrong. If they were right, he would have sold himself to the ones, who define everything, and would have obtained incredible popularity and wealth for his talent.

But this weird Mercury's economic discrimination is either being carefully concealed or absurd explanations are given. For instance, John Hotten believes, that members of "Queen" were amateur businessmen (though musicians normally aren't supposed to care about the financial part, they hire special people for that). As it has already been said Mercury's wealth being rather modest on western rich men's scale still evokes an enormous excitement amongst press and biographers. Although no one has ever been so generous to people as Freddie, and few rock-groups have done as much for charity as "Queen", gratitude is replaced by roughness and insults.

Journalists didn't only count money in Freddie's and his colleagues' pockets, but after his death they broke all accepted norms by outraging him for . absence of donations to AIDS funds in his testament!

What effrontery! No one has ever commented testaments of other wealthy men, deceased of this disease, in such a way!

Terrence Higgins' Trust for people suffering from AIDS had to stand up for Freddie, making a special declaration. The trust's representative informed press that he had no complaints on Mercury, because the deceased had transmitted large sums to the trust during his life not making it public. Moreover after Freddie's death ex-members of "Queen" transmitted to the trust all the income from the Tribute Concert and from selling the single "Bohemian Rhapsody". For Mercury's money a charitable fund "Phoenix", helping AIDS victims all over the world, was created.

And, surely, no newspaper said to whom aside from Mary Austin, he bequeathed a part of income from selling his songs.

He bequeathed it to a charitable fund, organized by Montserrat Caballe. This fund helps children-invalids and opens all over the world free musical schools for talented children from poor families. This information was stingily published in press a couple of years after Freddie's death in materials, devoted to Montserrat Caballe. Furthermore a certain percent of the profit from each sold Mercury's cassette or disc is spent on needs of "Phoenix". During his life Freddie spent millions to help everyone, even strangers . I can't hear applauses and admirable shouts!

If anyone else were Freddie - his noble action would be glorified!

So what's the matter?

What is he hated for?

Why has the whole information industry been working to destroy a harmless rock-group and its still working to insult and slander just one person?

A celebrity is always distorted by society's appeal. But something different happened to Freddie Mercury - a terrible, ugly personage, a complete opposition to real Freddie, was created.

What for? Why? Who needed that?

Why was it necessary to create a whole empire of propaganda that could have been more effective than Stalin's just because of one man?

I'm not exaggerating. Stalin didn't manage to make humanity believe, that communism was the best one from world's systems. These people made the whole world believe in undoubted lie.

Great lie costs a great deal of money. It was necessary to pay for many years to critics, journalists, "friends", perjurers, and biographers. The lies demanded to write and publish numerous false biographies and forged interviews. It was important to finance and advertise scoundrels such as Jim Hutton or May Austin, to check everyone attentively in case someone tried to "evade" the official line. It was necessary to create expensive propagandistic sites in Internet.

Someone had to cram disinformation into all texts dedicated to Freddie Mercury. Someone was to remind about his fictitious vices permanently and obtrusively to all levels turning information about Mercury into a continuous "black PR". Someone had to watch Freddie Mercury's name and link it to homosexuality and AIDS. Someone obtained to reproduce roomers in an automatic mode, turned "Queen" fan clubs into kindergartens for retarded. Someone fooled millions of people to make them repeat somebody else's thoughts and no one could understand things seen with naked eye. Even such talentless falsifiers as Rick Sky, Jim Hutton, Peter Freestone and David Bret could slander Freddie without being afraid to be caught.

All said above costs millions of dollars or even more. But no one felt sorry for that money during Freddie's life and after his death!

So why is Freddie so dangerous, that he's being hated and afraid of even after his death? Whose way did he cross? What "Queen secret" has been so scrupulously concealing for such a long time? What riddle surrounds Freddie Mercury's life, death and creative activity?

Talent is the first reason that occurs to mind. Freddie was too talented to be forgiven for that. Such talents are either destroyed or bought (which is also a form of destruction, because a sold talent rapidly degrades to mediocrity).

There's a precise formula, defining the attitude of bigwigs towards talents: "If you are talentless, I'll help you; if you're working on my level, I won't notice you; and if you are more talented than me, I'll destroy you".

On Freddie's background even most talented and outstanding singers looked dimly, and no well-advertised projects could be compared to "Queen". When "Queen" performed at assembled rock-concerts spectators were shouting, arranging ovations and weren't eager to listen to anyone, but "Queen". Show-business sharks couldn't bear such an insult!

Moreover Freddie wasn't selling himself. He was free and independent and cared not about the Big Masters with their rules and laws. Freddie managed to make his group totally independent from dictatorship of managers and producers. Usually such stubborn ones are being pushed away from the main scene - and bewildering people keep on asking where the singer that has just been so popular is .

However that didn't work with Freddie. From year to year his popularity was increasing - his talent and tenacity rendered to be more powerful that Masters' efforts. The more Freddie was being prosecuted the closer he was climbing to success - which was evoking new rage. Finally it became a matter of principles - we'd destroy him and that'd be it .

Freddie's origin played a great part in his discrimination. Freddie Mercury wasn't an Englishman and he wasn't from one of the "oppressed peoples" that are being protected by law from discrimination. He was a representative of Parses, who don't have powerful lobby in western society. Besides he left home in his youth and thus his community abandoned him. If he were a man of a different nationality the question of constant mockery at national minorities would have been raised. But it turned out so that it was possible to insult Parse's with impunity.

Some journalists practically expressed thoughts of their employers, intimating that such "swarthy ones" as Freddie were supposed to wash dishes in kitchens. During Freddie's life British press afforded itself direct racist ripostes into his address - it's naturally that all progressive publicity paid no attention to them.

Freddie's religion didn't suit the Masters either. Zoroastrism was too similar to Christianity, hated by the western elite.

Besides, show business - is one of the most profitable businesses in the nowadays world, tens milliards of dollars go through it each ear. And it's one of the most horrible criminal businesses. Freddie and "Queen" invaded sphere of somebody's financial interests, involving huge sums. An impudent immigrant was getting fame and money that somebody's beautiful lover or protégé was to be getting according to a plan. A Parse, who was supposed to wash toilets, was driving a limousine and had millions of fans. Could they possible bear that?

Show business has its own mafia, its veiled and evident "Big Bosses". As in any business they dislike the independent ones, they can't stand strangers on "their" territory and use compromising information, blackmail, intimidation, persecution through press and even physical eliminating in fighting with more talented rivals. Untimely deaths, which are widely spread amongst famous musicians and actors, aren't always connected with peculiarities of their lifestyles.

This problem is might be overcome if one of the Big Masters stands behind the person. Independent and incorruptible Freddie was defenceless before his enemies.

We should not forget about the homosexual trace in "Mercury's case".

As it was said above Freddie had a conflict with some big bosses because of his unwillingness to become a concubine. That resulted into hatred of all the influential gay-community known as International Association of Gays and Lesbians or International League of Sexual Minorities.

I believe I wouldn't make a discovery by stating facts that everyone knows. Western homosexuals aren't just people united by non-traditional sexual orientation. They became a kind of mafia with their own supreme and ordinary members, veiled signs and symbols, with secret politics and plans of conquering the world.

There are developed countries with dictatorship of sexual minorities covered with fighting for human rights. People who don't suffer sexual perversions are being turned into the oppressed majority and can't even take a breath without League's allowance. Gays and lesbians compound 90 percent of some city's administrations.

They are in show business, in literature, theatres, television, ballet, cinema, press and model business. Homosexuals openly dictate their orders and tastes to the society silencing all the discontented by rights of sexual minorities. Many cities are covered with a net of clubs, bars, discos and restaurants for gay people. Gay choruses are performing everywhere, aggressive gay-parades are being held. Pederasty is openly advertised, but any attempts to prevent homosexual decay of children and the youth are perceived as hypocrisy and intolerance. That is why numbers of gays and lesbians are rapidly increasing in developed countries leading to demographical catastrophe. It was necessary to confess your love for soviet government in the USSR; it's vital to express your love for gays and lesbians in western countries, if you aren't eager to become society's enemy. None of soviet cinema festivals were held without awarding success of communism; rare western festival dispenses with prizes for films dedicated to problems of sexual minorities (especially in the USA or Berlin). And according to public taboo no gays or lesbians are shown as negative personages.

Taking in account that gays and lesbians protect only "their own" people, if nothing changes in next couple of years homosexuality will be as necessary for career as party card in the USSR.

Withal the League doesn't conceal its racist misanthropic essence. Only its fascism is special - it's sexual.

Gay-propaganda keeps on saying that homosexuals and lesbians refer to an elected race, differing from the rest of the humanity by more developed brain and senses. Moreover they are seriously establishing the fact stating that all famous people were homosexual and they were the only ones to create world culture and art, that only adherents of unisexual love are capable enough for intellectual work and creativity (just as Moscow journalists, who aren't scared to death of political correctness, are joking that homosexuality instead of labour made a man from a monkey), 90 percent of the humanity, attracted to the opposite sex, are announced to be inferior creatures, being able to produce material goods for homosexuals and lesbians and to give birth to children for sexual games.

That's not just my fantasy. Contempt to heterosexuals is widely declared in various gay editions. Homosexual films and novels portray heterosexual men as rude, cruel and fetid animals on the background of wonderful, kind, exquisite and intelligent gays.

Nowadays press and literature, both Russian and English, is full of racist curses in address of heterosexuals. Gay articles are constantly reporting on incredible physical and intellectual superiority of gays. They are intelligent and well educated, they recite poems by hart and are polite with ladies, while heterosexuals are described as dunces willing to grab women in their paws and insult them. Gays anthropologically differ from heterosexuals - they've got thin faces, exquisite hands and figures, and heterosexuals are broad-shouldered, bulky, brusque and loathsome. Finally, heterosexuals stink with sweat, while gays smell with fine scents; heterosexuals never wash themselves and don't change their underwear, and gays take showers everyday . Now let anyone say it's not racism!

Here's a sweet scene from modern life in Berlin. A pair in love got hungry and decided to dinner at a gay restaurant. They were met by such glances as if a couple of African Americans entered an institution for white men in Atlanta in 1950. However they were accepted in a reserved manner and sat at a free table. But hardly had the man kissed his lady, they were expelled for "outrage to the surrounding people".

A number of western cities accepted laws, giving more rights to gays and lesbians than to other people (in 1999 in Paris a similar project evoked the first in the newest history "riot of the inferior" against the League). World is frequently shocked by "cases of paedophiles". It's enough to recollect recent gay scandals in Belgium and Latvia involving supreme authorities. It's known that the League organizes and advertises sex-tours to poor countries providing an opportunity for western gays to amuse with handsome boys, depriving these kids a possibility to become full-fledged men and infecting them with AIDS.

The league has been pretty successful in accomplishing its plans of world invasion, more successful than any sect or secret community. It's enough to see a gay-parade, associating with an aggressive communist or fascist sport show, to understand the exceedingly danger of the League.

In addition to power, one of the main League's aims is eliminating Christianity. Most of high-ranking League's figures aren't even trying to conceal their hatred towards this religion and are openly trying to destroy it. Due to shyness and timeserving of nowadays Catholicism and Protestantism, to their fear to defend beliefs not corresponding to modern trends, gays succeeded in outraging church as they did with government and culture.

The legalisation of unisexual marriages isn't enough, they are longing for church weddings! And they obtained it - most of western Christian confessions, except of Catholicism, allow gays and lesbians to wed in front of the altar. Such weddings don't shock anyone anymore. But if any priest dares to say "no" he'll be deprived of san for intolerance!

All traditional religions convict homosexuality, however, gays are demanding from Christianity the complete surrender in this question, they are stigmatising Christianity for intolerance, cruelty, hypocrisy and are requiring Christianity to fit in with their tastes.

Number of gay priests increases each year. Whole temples are being turned into place for gatherings of gays and lesbians. League's priest aren't ashamed of their vice; on the contrary, there are using their preachments to propagandise homosexuality amongst their parishioners. Columns of "progressive priests" are always accompanying famous parades of sexual minorities in San Francisco. Homosexual writers are openly saying that only gays are able to enter Paradise, because God doesn't like "bearded animals". Numerous seminars and conferences equalling homosexuality and Christianity are being organized. Even Jesus Christ . is considered gay! But that's not enough; gays and lesbians decided to organize their rally in Rome in a jubilee year for Christianity. Notwithstanding Pope's request to change their plans, gays insisted and with the help of press expressed their great joy of managing to slap in face the "intolerant" Christianity once again. Their previous convention was held in the building of Vienna's city administration. It looks like they are going attack Vatican next time!

Knowing all that, it's impossible to be surprised by the fact that many antichristian rock-groups were pulled out of poverty and advertised by homosexual producers.

It's not difficult to understand who wasn't pleased with Freddie and who got his refusal. It's obvious that the rejected ones weren't the least in the League. So the horrible role of the homosexuals in Mercury's life is clearing up.

According to an old principle "the thief is always the loudest one shouting "catch the thief", those people were spreading dirty roomers about Freddie and were trying to mess up his career in every possible way.

(Similar cases took place many years ago. For instance, in 50's in the USA within the frames of so-called "McCarthyism" a special commission under the leadership of McCarthy's assistant Roy Cone in addition to hunting for communists was occupied with revealing homosexuals amongst highest military ranks, members of government and the Congress. Respectable fathers not suiting McCarthy and Cone, were invited to commission's session, where they were supposed to answer to humiliating questions . Thirty years later a shocking scandal appeared (though it was quickly stumbled). It was revealed that most members of that intimidating commission were homosexuals by themselves, and at one time all-powerful Cone deceased of AIDS in 1986 in one of Washington hospitals. Attitude towards homosexuality had been changed and his openly lived with his lover).

At different times into Freddie Mercury's house under cover of servants and companions three homosexuals - Jim Hutton, Joe Fannelli and Peter Freestone were introduced. They were involving other gays into Freddie's life; there were staff "agents" amongst his friends.

There's a strange episode in Hutton's book. On his first coming to Freddie's home he recognised in Freestone the man he used to work with in a department store. But Freestone approached his finger to lips, and later asked Hutton not make public the fact of their acquaintance and not to tell Freddie anything.

What was the matter? What needed to be concealed? What kind of a veiled gay-community was organised behind Freddie's back?

Did they really work in the same department store, I wonder? Or did they get acquainted in some other place under different circumstances? Freestone in his memoirs tried to show that he didn't know Hutton before his appearance in Mercury's house .

Hutton describes Freestone with a special gentleness, imputing him such imaginary merits as musical enlightenment of an ignorant pederast Mercury and burial of his mortal remains. While Mercury in Hutton's book is a loathsome and repellent person, Freestone is almost a saint. Freestone in his turn covers Hutton in every way. In his book "Mister Mercury", he confirmed all the abominations about Freddie. Most likely Freestone was the one to report to Hutton all the details of his work with Freddie, in order for the impostor to be able to talk about the events he hadn't participated in. Obviously this couple wasn't connected only by their work. Chronologically Peter Freestone got into Mercury's home before Hutton and probably he persuaded his master to "warm the poor orphan". Fannelli most likely was Prenter's or David Minns's protégé.

High-raking homosexuals were promoting the creation of the gay-legend about Freddie in every way, including direct support of Hutton, Freestone and other slanderers. They were the authors and the customers of articles on concealed gay-symbolism in "Queen" creativity. How those "researchers" could have learned the symbols unknown to 90 percent of homosexuals and familiar only to the top of the League?! Where did the biographers and "friends" find such detailed information about gays' life, their clubs, slang, symbolism? Why do family men know the facts unknown to most of ordinary gays? Why has the gay-community been deceiving publicity for ten years, approving that Mercury was a habitué of gay get-togethers? Why does it call Freddie "their own" with such hatred and hostility?

Of course, it's impossible to explain by that all the trials Freddie and his group had to go through. It is necessary to mention the main factor in "Mercury's case" - it's religion, to my mind. Withal I should clear up some statements about so-called "New Age" or neo-paganism.

Every one has heard these weird words, however, many don't understand their meaning. Some Aquarius Era, golden age . Meanwhile "New Age" ideology is a part of massive neo-pagan propaganda, targeting to annihilate Christianity and to create a society of exultant occultism.

The 20^th century became an epoch of cruel fight with religion. Russian people experienced the most terrible forms of this fight, including destruction of churches, icons and ritual objects, executing priests by a firing and prohibition of religious cult. However, western situation wasn't too good either. There Christianity was being eliminated in another way - by oblivion, indifference, ridicule, counterpropaganda of pseudoscientific ideas and false doctrines. The main role in turning masses away from Christianity was given to widespread and elite culture. Particularly that process was intensified starting with 60's when culture became a part of so-called "sexual revolution" and turned into Zen Buddhism and Neo Buddhism.

The idea of actively propagandised "Aquarius Era" is a call for Christianity. Talks about soon ending of "Pisces Era" and coming of "Golden Era of Aquarius" aren't as innocent as it might seem. The fact is that the sign of Pisces in Christian and astrological symbolism signifies Jesus Christ, and sign of Aquarius in astrology is connected to occultism and demon worshipping. In fact, this "new religion" is Satanism in a nice package.

"New Age" followers are very powerful in this world. They assign main streams in governments, show business, cinema producing, art, literature, science, and systems of school and university education. They've got huge sums of money, allowing them to spread their ideas all over the world. Moreover "New Age" culture became dominating in all spheres.

Let us overlook the most popular ways of propagandising evil in modern times world:

1. There are special economic theories. Their goal is to announce the human being a product of economic processes. People's lives and fates, history of state, depend only on amount of money and level of life. There's no love, no friendship, no religion, a man is a slurping animal that should take care of stuffing its pockets and belly. Any crime can be justified by economical advantages. Now most of the companies won't hire a person, if he/she doesn't acknowledge earning money to be the sense and the main aim of his/her life. In modern American culture most of consumer words involve money factor - one hundred dollar smile, to look for a thousand of dollars; children's games and cartoons are constantly evolving around money. Money and fortune are being turned an object of religious cult. The extreme form of it is expressed in so-called "commercial cult" ("Herbalife", for instance).
2. Psychoanalysis, vulgar freidism. Man's behaviour is being explained exceptionally by sexual instincts, psychic traumas and subconscious. Definition of moral, conscience, soul are being abolished; unlimited sexual passion and inclination are wining the first prizes; the most disgusting perversions are considered to be a norm and a man is being turned into a demon, stuffed with foul attractions and fantasies, into a "sexual animal". The complicated life of a personality is being reduced to sexual worries and satisfaction of flesh. Any crimes can be justified by "complexes" or traumas received in childhood. Moreover it's being suggested that a person shouldn't be ashamed of his/her desires and to perform whatever he/she wants to do, including frank abomination. Freidism is being obtrusively propagandised all over the world, and it's becoming a kind of religion in the USA.
3. Sexual education of children. There would be nothing bad in this idea, if not for the authors suggesting that children should lead a disorderly sexual life in any age as long as they secure themselves with a condom. That is a direct propaganda of children's lechery. Numerous school series showing teenagers solving exceptionally sexual problems are promoting these ideas. People are being turned into container, throwing or accepting semen; definitions of "love" and "sex" are being equalled, coition is being turned into a kind of morning exercise, and the loved person - into a "sex partner".
4. Propaganda of ecumenism - the idea of creating a unified worldwide religion. The real goal of this movement is the annihilation of Christianity and other monotheistic religions, their dissolution in occlusive teachings of East.
5. Propaganda of totalitarian sects, occlusive and esoteric teachings of East. A whole industry works for that. Through books, films, commercials, computer games strange, hostile towards Christian culture ideas of illusory world, of reincarnation, about an impersonal God, about equality of good and evil, about necessity of egoism and indifference to other people's sufferings, about possibility for a man to become God through "unlimited capacities" etc. are being introduced into people's consciousness. Wizardry, extrasensory are being preached, it's being offered to contact with the "voices" better known as fallen spirits. Lexicon of modern people includes such words as "karma", "chackras", "astral body", "kundalini", "previous life", "nirvana" . Gradually people are being taught to perceive devil as an "Angel of light". Buddhism, Hinduism and neo-pagan cults are being presented as universal ideas, solving all human problems. Films and books are overfilled with good and evil gurus, lamas and Buddhist monks, philosophising on the background of Himalayas. Herewith Christians are being portrayed as gatherings of half-witted idiots, sadomasochists and perverts, who are constantly burning heretics, killing and torturing women and children.
6. "New Age" literature and cinema. First of all mystic thrillers should me mentioned. World is being portrayed as a horrible place, deprived of harmony, ruled by various kinds of evil spirits. Weakness and helplessness of people in front of world of evil are being underlined. Means, such as - cross, holy water, special prayers that have always been useful in battles with demons are announced useless and unable to help. Cross is burnt in hands, churches are being destroyed, priests are falling into the hell. Evil is triumphing and it's unconquerable, it can be overcome only with the help of magic and wizardry. Evil spirits are being openly advertised. While Christianity teaches to be afraid of demons, vampires and mutants, films describe them as something sweet and attractive. Festivals of vampires are being held, children's shops are selling "fashionable" mutants and monsters, children are taught to call spirits and not to fear them. Finally, the devil is being presented as a pleasant, attractive and all-powerful master; after that there's only one step left to Satanism.

Cartoon series, where personages are extraordinary similar to drawings of people suffering from schizophrenia, where they constantly beat, kill and torture one another, exchanging dirty jokes and blunt dialogs. How such art influences children's psyche a case happened in Japan can witness, when tens of thousands kids after watching a cartoon became victims of epileptic stroke. It's possible to say the same about numerous films with a lot of fights, in which the world is vile and cruel, where characters kill hundreds of people without any regret, shooting them, dismembering them in parts, pulling out their eyes and cutting of their heads. Thus, violence becomes a norm in people's consciousness, and a murder turn into a usual event as breakfast, people are being taught to delight in spectacle of blood and death. That's why similar films have already nudged people to committing crimes. In American schools pupils shoot their teachers and classmates a couple of times per year, numbers of senseless murders just for killing has increased significantly, news are over flown by reports about cruel shrifts of children on their peers - for nothing, because of a shallow quarrel or in order to see blood like "in films".

"Religious films" are openly preaching most savage satanic and sect's ideas and sneering at Christianity. To the same category might be referred numerous nightmarish screen versions of the Bible, having no relations to the original.

Films about maniacs. There evil is as attractive and interesting as in thrillers. These degenerates are presented as interesting people, as philosophers searching for a way to express themselves. The one who does evil for the sake of evil becomes a national hero and an example for imitation. Evil is all-powerful and is triumphing - even if a maniac is caught and killed, his deal lives on and wins. Perversions are being turned into philosophy, films inspire people for new murders; imprisoned maniacs write books, which are being published and filmed.

7. Computer games and films. Millions of people all over the world have already become computers' slaves. In such games world is being presented as some overbroad illusion that might be changed and reprogrammed, and people are presented as incorporeal shadows, appearing from nowhere and disappearing to nowhere. The border between the real and virtual worlds is being erased; moreover a man perceives real life as an illusion, virtual life - as reality. People are becoming slaves and screws in somebody's games and ideas, their psyche is being destroyed. Practically that is a technical embodiment of Indian "Maya" idea: life is an illusion, people - are extras in a space spectacle, where everything is prejudged and programmed. Personal responsibility for life stops existing, cause it's not necessary anymore - everything is a senseless dream, a game, someone's fantasy! Not without reason Chesterton fairly mentioned that all philosophising criminals are always discussing eastern teachings, space energy, rotation of life, predetermining and reincarnation. Almost a hundred years ago he noticed that Indian ideas are turned into scoundrel's religion in West.
8. Open propaganda of Satanism - worshipping of the devil, evil spirits, recalls to surrender to all desires, to do want people are eager to do, to abolish moral. Evil is being encouraged in every way. Youth is being taught not to fear the devil, but to become friends with him.
9. Propaganda of drugs through occlusive films, books and drug music. People are being told that it's impossible to enjoy life or to create a masterpiece without drugs. The whole human culture is being reduced to drugs abuse, to reception of illusory pleasure and journeys to some "worlds of fantasy". Most "New Age" movements of youth, such as hippies, and most of modern rock-groups have made a cult out of doing drugs.
10. Cult of UFO. That is a false doctrine, that has nothing to do with science and studying space; it's aim is to make people believe in strangers from other planets, be afraid of them and worship them; a lot of films are promoting these ideas. The idea of God is openly changed by the ideas of all-powerful supreme people. In the USA the fear of being kidnapped by extraterrestrials has become a national problem. Various sects, trying to contact with other planets, have appeared. It's easy to recognise these strangers, who disappear after reading simple anti-evil prayers.
11. Propaganda of sexual perversions and elimination of sex differences. In addition to gay associations, feminist communities pretending to be fighting for women's rights are really struggling for creation of "unisexual" humanity.
12. Finally, rock-music contributed to the triumph of the "New Age". Most rock-groups have got an opened occlusive or satanic directivity. "The Beatles" became the pioneers in this affair. John Lennon used to say, that Christianity would go. It would vanish and shrink. It wasn't necessary to argue about that; Lennon knew that he was right and it would be proved right. By this time "The Beatles" were more popular than Jesus; and Lennon didn't know which would go first, rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Another time he said that Christianity would go, and "The Beatles" would remain . "

In 1986 "The Beatles" produced "White album", in future renamed into "Gospel from Satan". On the cover of album "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Band" Kali - Hindus goddess of evil, and Alister Crowly - the head of western Satanists were portrayed. On the cover of album "Yellow Submarine" one of the group-members compressed his finger is a "Sign of Lucifer"- his forefinger and pinkie were thrown in front. The emblem of "The Beatles" was an apple - a well-known symbol of the fall. Members of "The Beatles" were fond of occlusive eastern teachings, used to travel to meditate in ashrams, and protected most neo-Hindus totalitarian sects - such as "Transcendental Meditation and Society of Consciousness of Krishna".

Here's the answer to the questions about "The Beatles" phenomenon. That's why in few ears they achieved such popularity, honour, wealth and protection of the powerful ones of this world. That's why their concerts where turned into sessions of massive psychosis, drugs and occultism was so spread among their fans, and Beatle mania turned into a religious cult. That's why John Lennon was announced the genius of all times and peoples, and the number of his museums, monuments and memorial desks is increasing according to geometrical progression.

However, "The Beatles" weren't Satanists - it was their tribute to fashion. In early 70's a great number of "black" rock-groups especially amongst mentalists, was created. Those musicians weren't concealing their serving to the devil, they were turning their concerts into black masses, making sacrifices on stage, throwing animals' guts into the audience, watering the spectators with their urine and showing their genitals, swearing and destroying their equipment. Their clothes, shows and album covers contain satanic symbols - inverted crosses, pentagrams, "the eye", horns, illustrations of devils, vampires and mutants, "Lucifer's sign" is frequently used during concerts. The main idea of these groups is the hatred towards Christianity and particularly towards Christ, glorification of evil and Satan, calls to hatred, drug abuse, murders and suicides. There are frequent crimes amongst fans, drug abuse, suicide, deaths of overdoses; many of them were recruited into satanic sects right at rock-concerts. A lot of cases of disorders, deaths and injuries of the lookers-on happened at such concerts.

Let's stop for now. Of course, I've mentioned only a tiny part of satanic propaganda only in common lines. But I hope that'll be enough.

There have never been such cruel and senseless crimes in peaceful time, scoundrels, evil and cruelty, so many perversions and vices, desperation and hopelessness, suicides and mentally unstable people, rascals and drug abusers, as during our epoch. That is the horrible price for life without God and surrender in front of the "New Age".

Well, what kind of relation does Freddie Mercury have with all that?

He has the straightest one.