OCCULT ARTISTS: The Courting Of The Crimson King Of England
OCCULT ARTISTS: The Courting Of The Crimson King Of England
King Charles III’s Openly Satanic Portrait Is A Joke…But On Who?
“On soft gray mornings widows cry, while wise men share a joke / I run to grasp divining signs to unravel the hoax / The black queen chants, the funeral march, the cracked brass bells will ring / To summon back the fire witch to the Court of the Crimson King…” — King Crimson
“By their own words they will be exposed / They’ve got a severe case of the Emperor’s New Clothes…” — Sinéad O’Connor
$ $ $ $ $ $
The horrible yet hilarious portrait of wannabe human tampon and hapless sausage-fingered King Charles III was unveiled a week ago today. It’s bedeviled me, both artistically and symbolically, since.
The best thing about the mostly-monochromatic monstrosity is that it sucks and nobody likes it — not the art critics, not the hive mind, not me. It looks like something vomited up from the pits of Hades’ kitchen, a swirling visual cacophony (caca-phony?) of mottled shades of blood red, hot pink and fuchsia, swirling around its subject like a vacuum into the abyss, loaded with more occult symbolism than you can shake a holly wood wand at.
All of it, of course, loaded with symbolic ambiguity and dual/duel meanings. Does the monarch butterfly fluttering above Chuck’s right shoulder symbolize his metamorphosis from Prince to King? Is it a signifier of his devotion to the environment? The artist, Jonathan Yao, son of a Parliament member, portraitist of the stars, claims it is both those things.
But as numerous conspiracy researchers pointed out immediately, butterflies are also a symbol of “Monarch” programming, one method of trauma-based mind control that built upon the foul foundation of CIA’s MK-Ultra brainwashing program — who got it from the Nazis, who got it from the Egyptian Book of the Dead — and is now used by numerous organizations, government and not, for covert operational purposes.
Others have pointed out additional odd discrepancies in the portrait, like “the all seeing eye” roughly in the area of King Chuck’s right pocket, and what possibly appears to be a devil’s tail, also emanating from his right side, the painting’s left. Disembodied faces churn in the splotchy red-and-pink churn, “represent[ing] thousands of souls slaughtered by the British Empire,” in the interpretive words of New York magazine art critic Danielle Cohen.
Or maybe the color palette’s a tribute of sorts to King Chuck’s bloodlust blood-drinking bloodline, which, as I pointed out a while back, can be traced to Vlad the Impaler, the inspiration for Dracula. Hell, Chuck’s plugged it himself: “I have Transylvania in my blood.”
Then of course, there is the strange face of the horned transgender “god” Baphomet, which/witch seems to appear when the portrait is duplicated, placed upside-down and mirrored — a total trans-positioning and reversal, perfectly appropriate in Law of Inversion Land.
I wonder how many see it right away, how many can see it when they’re shown it, and how many will never be able to see it no matter what. The “face” looks pretty damned distinct, and its appearance makes total Zeitgeist sense: Evil wants to go public! What good is ruling the world if you can’t flex and flaunt it?
But I’ll also note that I don’t necessarily think Jonathan Yao knew what he was doing with the demon when he half-painted it. As I’ve said before (and many have before me), True Artists channel creative ideas and work from…somewhere else. They are a conduit. They are a time machine yet timeless. They are a vessel, but only half-captain of it. “The blues flow through you, they don’t come from you,” as Van Morrison once wrote, then sang.
So I think it’s quite possible Jonathan Yao is a legit Artist, a veritable authentic portraitist who captures the essence of his subjects effectively and thus, while trying to portray the spirit of King Charles III, ended up doing it far too well, better than he ever imagined. Which means, by definition, that since Chuck sucks, the painting sucks.
Then again, maybe it’s just another mostly solo-toned, limited color portrait style that uses monochrome physical and background attributes to push the focus to the off-setting facial features of the portrait’s subject, which certainly well-suits the vanity of the Movie Stars, media moguls and royalty that Yao has largely painted in the past dozen years. You can see below how the King Chuck portrait is hardly an outlier when it come to this kind of stylized “look.”
Ah well, O Hell. No matter how you interpret the multiple ambiguities of the portrait, the general consensus has most certainly been that this thing’s grotesque af. The only question really is whether the hideousness is a feature or a bug, and I’m sure you know what I think: These maniacs are striving to create a Hell on Earth, and defiling the Arts is one of the most obvious ways that they’re doing it.
As I’ve said before and before and before, we are deep Deep DEEP in the middle of a manufactured Culture War that is actually Civil War II but more like WW3 yet above all else a Spiritual War. A war of magicians, or, perhaps more appropriately stated, a war of Magicians vs. Mystics. Not sure; that’s a subject for another day.
Anyway, I’m not going to go on and on about that damned painting; if you want detailed deconstruction of its evil elements, there’s been good stuff on Xwitter, Reddit’s r/conspiracy subreddit and elsewhere. For example, while I don’t agree with everything in this 71 minute de-occulting of the painting, and won’t assert it’s the best thing you’ll find, it’s as good a deep dive summation as I’ve found, and is loaded with research you can double check yourself. Plus, I like tossing a solid to the black American de-occulting community, who, as a whole, seem to be waking up faster than any other demographic to this sinister supernatural fascism bullshit, which is how they saved America’s ass by rejecting the dangerous mRNA chemical injection more than any other race. I appreciate it!
There is one key element I haven’t seen addressed about the portrait-from-hell: Its comical reception, and the strange paradox of Evil presenting itself proudly and unashamed, but then getting mocked relentlessly until it becomes a laughingstock. Not sure what to make of that, but I’ll draw a Hollywood comparison.
Child star and America’s top box office draw from 1934-1938 Shirley Temple used to tell the story about how when she was a tween girl, she once had a meeting with the multiple Oscar-winning Hollywood producer Arthur Freed (Singing in the Rain, An American In Paris), who, when she entered his office, whipped out his cock in expectation of stunned, submissive jailbait service. Instead, twelve year old Shirley laughed at him. Freed, humiliated and furious, threw her out of his office. He’d lost his power.
In this same way, laughter at and mockery of the so-called “ruling elite” (who are actually a predator class), neuters their presumption of authority. It’s the one thing they can’t control, so it’s the one thing they can’t handle.
Look around. King Chuck 3’s a joke. Joe Biden’s a senile clown. Bill Gates has been societally demoted to his original primal state as disrespected and ridiculed micropenis nerd. Tom Hanks hasn’t Xweeted since May 2020, because every time he did he’d get buried in cruel mockeries (he shut off Instagram comments even before that). Klaus Schwab went from a scary pseudo-Nazi type to an Austin Powers’ level cartoonish villain, such a punch-line poster child for technocracy (techno-crazy?) that this week he announced he’s stepping down as head of the W.E.F. The Movie Star is dead. Corporate journalism is dead. Broadcast TV is dead. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead.
Before we get out of here, I want to touch on a few more things. First off, speaking of off-putting Art, let’s remind everyone of the pair of paintings owned by (allegedly?) dead pedophile and blackmail virtuoso Jeffrey Epstein.
Finally, we’ll close with this also odd and seemingly symbolic recent photograph of Meta’s multi-billionaire Mark Zuckerberg on his 40th birthday with the super creepy weirdo vaccine fetishist Bill Gates. It’s supposed to be a shrunken recreation of Zuck’s dorm room, one of several diminutive reproductions created by Zuckerberg’s first generation Chinese-American wife, Priscilla Chan, to commemorate the places her husband lived and worked over the years. There are ten (!) of them, just in case you want any further evidence the über-rich are not like you and I.
In the photo, Zuck seems to be laughing at and "looking down" on Gates, who doesn’t appear to be in on the joke and is reduced to "the kid's seat.” Zuck’s shirt reads “Carthago Delenda Est,” which translates from the Latin as "Carthage must be destroyed.”
Carthage was once one of the most influential civilizations in history, from roughly 800 B.C. to 150 B.C., yet not much is know about it today. That’s because of its long and bitter war with Rome, which lasted more than a century before it was finally, ignominiously lost. When it was, Carthage did, indeed, get completely destroyed. Along with virtually all Carthaginian texts. We really know very little about the Carthaginians, though we do know enough that Denzel Washington is going to be playing the most famous Carthaginian, the elephant-riding general Hannibal, who led the last major failed incursion against Rome in the early second century B.C., in a Netflix movie.
I’m in danger of heading down an even deeper historical rabbit hole, so I’ll pull out now before my digressions overtake me. Suffice to say, Trust No One (not even me!) and, as always, expect things to get crazier, though not necessarily worse. Unless you’re Kate Middleton, of course.
Well done as always. My first random thoughts: wow, that info about Shirley Temple makes me want to double/triple my mama bear vigilance for my kids. I mean, I seriously never want to let my kids out of my sight. (Unrealistic, I know)
And the (red) King of Hearts, when I used to play poker, was known as the suicide king because it is always (oddly) portrayed sticking a sword in his own head. Something that always struck me as odd as a kid. But as some wise person said (maybe it was you?) “signs and symbols rule the world “
Interesting points about the KC portrait.
I couldn’t stand to look at it when I first saw it and I had a sense it was not just an odd portrait and I was actually repulsed by it and you explained what my subconscious was picking up.
In the interview Shirley Temple Black did with Larry King she talks about the meeting with the executive and laughs about it which is absurd. She mentions telling her mother about it right after the meeting and her mother says it happened to her too in her meeting. And get this she says we laughed about it. WTH.
It’s worth watching the clip of the movies you linked because it really is the tip of the iceberg. Same with watching any really early Disney cartoons.
Disgusting.