You'll be shocked to hear about a very controversial work of art that was just unveiled yesterday.

This is Prince Charles's first official portrait as monarch.

This thing has gone viral.

It is being lambasted all over the internet, especially by the conservatives.

And I am not just being reflexively contrarian here.

I think people are really missing the point.

I think it's actually a great portrait.

For those of you who haven't seen it, the portrait is this kind of smattering of big brush strokes, impasto, thick paint, and it's red.

It's red and pink and a little orange, and it looks like, I don't know, like an elementary school Mark Rothko mixed with Jackson Pollock and, I don't know, Van Gogh when he ran out of all the other colors.

It's just all this kind of smeary stuff, but then emerging from that, you can make out still in the red and the pink King Charles's regalia, you know, his uniform, his medals.

But then what you can really see clearly is his face and his hands.

Those are not in pink.

Those are in natural skin color and his hair color.

And you can also see a little butterfly floating on his shoulder.

Now I really like this portrait, and the reason I like this portrait is I think it is perfectly

King Charles.

The modernist elements to the painting, which is most of the background, is the modern world.

King Charles could drown.

He could be overwhelmed in a sea of modernism and modernity.

That's what we're all living in.

And yet he emerges, his regalia, his royal regalia start to emerge a little bit.

Still indistinct though, you can't, is that a uniform he's wearing?

I can sort of see it.

But then the man, his face and his hands emerge very clearly, and he's not being painted in a modern art style.

He's rendered here in a very traditional style because King Charles is a traditionalist.

He's a philosophical traditionalist in the school of René Guénon.

I don't mean traditionalist in the sense of like a Catholic who goes to Latin Mass.

I don't even mean traditionalist in the sense of like an Edmund Burke, a political traditionalist.

I mean a traditionalist in this very precise philosophy, also known as perennialism, popularized by this guy René Guénon, who Charles has lectured about, which views modernity as being defined primarily by the neglect of the sacred.

Before modernity, we had a sense of the sacred, a sense of the divine.

In all cultures, not just in Western Christian culture, but in all cultures, there was this sense of the divine, of the sacred, and modernity denies that.

And Charles is very much a traditionalist.

And here he is in this sea of irreverent, ambiguous, downright ugly modernity.

You see this man emerge in clear definition because that is what he is.

He's a king, for goodness sakes.

You remember during his coronation, you might have seen that it's kind of a funny meme.

It's him holding his scepter and he looks kind of depressed almost because this is a man who has the weight of the English monarchy on his head, unsteady as the head that wears the crown.

And in modernity, which doesn't understand things like dignity and the sacred anymore, he has got to carry this through, which is vibrant because the tradition is not just some dusty old thing.

It's actually the most vital thing because it's survived all the centuries, all the vicissitudes, all the trials.

It's made it through.

That means it's very durable, much more durable than the ephemeral fads of modernity.

This is where the butterfly is so important.

Presumably it's a monarch butterfly because King Charles is a monarch.

But what does the butterfly represent?

A butterfly is not a dusty old thing.

That's what a cocoon is.

The butterfly is a symbol of rejuvenation, of rebirth.

And a butterfly paradoxically is at once fragile.

Those poor little wings could break off, very fragile, but also enduring.

Also rather durable.

The butterfly will be reborn, will continue.

I think it's actually a pretty brilliant piece.

I don't think I'm reading too much into it or anything like that.

Obviously this art, especially modern art, which is much more focused on abstract symbols, it's symbolizing something.

And I think people look at it and they say it's ugly.

Yeah, it is kind of ugly, but modernity is ugly.

Yeah.

I don't think the painting is right to be hung in Buckingham Palace, as in many ways the painting is about the palace.

To put a work of art that is largely modern into Buckingham Palace is to kind of undermine the whole argument of the painting.

But it's a really impressive work of art.

It should go up in the National Gallery or something.

And I think it gets the man in all of the sadness of his position and all of the resignation of having to be this bearer of tradition amid ugly, blotchy, red, dangerous modernity.

Right now go to janiusell.com slash Noel's letter Y letter T. As many of you know, it is Janiusell's 25 year anniversary.

Right now our listeners will get an extra 25% off their already fabulous prices, making this the biggest Janiusell sale ever.

Janiusell is offering an extra 25% off in honor of this anniversary.

This makes the already fabulous Mother's Day sale their biggest sale ever.

If you have not tried Janiusell, a great place to start is with their most popular package.

This features their Gen 90 serum, which instantly erases wrinkles around the eyes, forehead and mouth.

It also includes their top selling under eye bags and puffiness serum, as well as their jawline treatment for a more contoured defined jawline.

Janiusell is so confident in their product that they guarantee you will see results in less than 12 hours, or you will get your money back.

For a limited time, get an extra 25% off for Janiusell's anniversary.

The discount is automatically applied at checkout.

Once this sale is gone, it's gone, 40 years right now.

You know I love this company founded by a Coptic Christian from Egypt who left Egypt for the American dream.

Absolutely top shelf quality products.

Go to janiusell.com slash Noel's letter Y letter T. To sweeten the deal even more, you'll get a free spa box with two bonus gifts and free shipping.

Go to janiusell.com slash Noel's letter Y letter T.

A Catholic school is under fire right now because of a court ruling.

One of the most liberal appellate courts in the country has ruled that a Catholic school is able to terminate the employment of a teacher for getting gay married.

So this is one of the most liberal appellate courts out there, says yes, a Catholic high school has the right to fire a teacher, a male teacher for marrying quote unquote another man as if that were possible.

Conservatives and religious freedom defenders and religious people broadly obviously are very very happy about this and they were pushing back against an anti-discrimination law that said that a Catholic high school can't be Catholic.

That's basically what the law said.

If you're a Catholic high school, you're not allowed to be Catholic.

Sure you can maybe teach some of the church fathers or something, but you can't actually live out a Catholic life according to Catholic doctrine.

We're not going to let you do that because the liberal religion, the anti-religion religion, that's going to supersede any other religion, be it Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or

Muslim or anything.

You don't get the right to your religion here.

I'm really glad the court ruled this way.

It's excellent news, but my take on the decision is just, duh, duh, of course a Catholic school can be Catholic.

Or you're saying that Catholic schools are not allowed in America.

Duh, of course a Catholic school can fire a teacher for violating the Catholic faith.

Is a Catholic teacher required to employ people who regularly openly practice and teach other religions in its classrooms?

Well then that means Catholic school is illegal.

Is a Catholic school required to hire Satanists who openly discuss and advocate Satanism in its classrooms?

No, of course not.

It's a Catholic school.

It's allowed to be Catholic.

If the First Amendment means anything at all, it means this.

It defends this.

And you'll hear a lot of the left-wing supposed First Amendment advocates, they're going to run away from this one because the liberals only ever invoke the Constitution in a minority of cases when it is politically convenient to them.

But they don't actually like the Constitution.

They don't really like America.

They think it's an unjust, awful country.

We have no right to be here.

We're founded by oppressors, and their ideas are evil and oppressive, and that's proof of that.

They want the first chance that you really get a rubber-meets-the-road First Amendment case.

The libs are going to run away from that.

They're going to attack the First Amendment.

You're not allowed to dissent, whether you're a Catholic school, whether you are a conservative on social media, whether you're anything in between.

You are not allowed to dissent from the dominant liberal regime.

That was good.

Now before you go, subscribe.

Thank you.

We'll see you next time.