Annual Ad-Free Subscription… Go ad-free and read the history they’d rather rewrite.

Donate… Support reporting that calls out political cosplay disguised as patriotism.

Sign up for our email list… Get the stories that break the bubble before the bubble breaks you.

The modern “No Kings” crowd didn’t just materialize out of thin air. And they sure as hell didn’t pop up out of some serious constitutional debate or a deep understanding of American history. It grew out of pop culture, identity politics, aging theater kids, and a very specific boomer-liberal coping mechanism that exploded about a decade ago.

READ MORE: Sen. Tuberville says 6 lawmakers serving in Congress didn’t legitimately win their elections…

And what was that coping mechanism? Hamilton.

That’s right, today’s cringeworthy No Kings nonsense can be directly tied to the 2015 Hamilton musical.

When Hamilton hit Broadway, it wasn’t just another random stage production. It became a cultural obsession for guilt-ridden, upper-middle-class liberals who were desperate for a version of American history that made them feel morally comfy. And this show allowed them to celebrate the founding of the country, thanks to rewriting it through a progressive lens that left out the “uncomfy” parts.

The musical casts nearly every American revolutionary figure as a person of color, while portraying British leadership as exaggerated, cartoonish white villains. The show blended rap, pop, and a theatrical spectacle to turn the founding era into a modern political morality tale that liberals could finally relate to. Even if it wasn’t accurate. But the marketing worked, because for liberal audiences, Hamilton became an ideological anthem.

READ MORE: Why are so many black GA politicians getting arrested right now?

And, as it happens with most progressive cultural obsessions, the message didn’t stay contained to the stage. It eventually turned into activism, protest culture, and political slogans that treat history like a performance.

That’s where the “No Kings” phenomenon enters the picture…

As you likely know, the “No Kings” crowd loves to present itself as “rooted” in historical resistance to tyranny. But the aesthetic, language, and emotional vibe of the movement are more theater-kid political cosplay with a Hamilton-style mythology.

READ MORE: And just like that, Pizzagate is back in the news…

One online post actually argues that you cannot understand the aging theater-kid liberal obsession with “No Kings” without understanding the cultural obsession Hamilton created.

This post is fantastic, and it lays out how the musical literally reframed American history into this goofy, racialized morality play that liberal audiences ate up with near-religious intensity.

By 2015, things had gotten so over the top that it wasn’t “we saw Hamilton.” It was, “we saw Hamilton five times.”

Here’s the argument being made.

Disgraced Propagandist:

Fellow chuds, you really cannot understand the No Kings phenomenon among the aging theater kid boomerlib without understanding Hamilton (2015), a stage musical that became a sensation and made Lin Manuel Miranda a global star.

In Hamilton, we have the story of Alexander Hamilton retold. Every American or revolutionary is a person of color. They rap and sing poppy songs. Every single British person is white and repellant. In one number King George literally froths out the mouth, spitting in disgusting fashion, allowing spittle to hang off face etc.

The shocking thing here is that it’s not like some of the Americans are of color, ALL of them are. And ALL the evil Brits are white. And this is a roving stage play that’s produced in different locations—it’s not “like reverse” minstrelsy, it literally is. It is a race play, and it’s gobbled up by old ignorant whites with the same rabid fervor.

There are sometimes like 25 people on the stage, it’s extremely glaring and insane. It seems impossible today, even 10 years later, that such a thing is possible, but when protected by literally 99.99% theater libtards utterly encased in a cocoon of highly funded white guilt patronage driven by the deranged and mentally ill dregs of great families, childless aunts or completely cucked old guys, it’s pretty incredible what blind hypocrisies can come to be (this from the crowd most worried about appropriation).

Lin Manuel Miranda is extremely talented, but you can see in his eyes that communist gleam. What’s driving him is fury. Revenge. Revenge over some dinner party he wasn’t invited to. And thus we remember the rule from the newsreader from the fantastic HBO show Rome, “no prostitutes, actors, or unclean tradesmen may attend.”

Hamilton didn’t just retell American history with a left-wing identity politics spin. It selected heroes and villains and shaped moral lessons to fit modern progressive emotional needs rather than historical accuracy.

But hey, who wants facts interfering with a coping session, right, libs?

And one of the biggest issues historians have raised about Hamilton isn’t what the show emphasized. It’s what it conveniently left out.

As Hamilton’s cultural influence grew, historians began reexamining how the musical portrayed Alexander Hamilton himself, particularly this idea that he was some committed abolitionist figure of the purest order. That narrative has been widely embraced by audiences, but scholars say the historical record paints a far more complicated and uncomfortable picture.

Esquire:

Hamilton, though, isn’t really criticized for what it put on the stage. It’s more what the play omitted that has had people questioning its legacy the past few years. In an essay collection titled, Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical is Restaging America’s Past, historians argue that Hamilton is part of the recent “Founders Chic” trend, which is essentially the glorification of America’s Founding Fathers in response to modern political turbulence. That said, historians have honed in on Hamilton’s view of its lead character as an unwavering abolitionist—while in real life, Hamilton and his family likely owned slaves. Annette Gordon-Reed, a professor of history of law at Harvard, pointed out to The New York Times that Hamilton’s record shows little action against slavery, even if he did openly attack Thomas Jefferson’s racist views. Gordon-Reed said the view of Hamilton as an ardent abolitionist is “an idea of who we would like Hamilton to be.”

Actually, History Workshop summed it up even cleaner.

Moreover, according to Schuyler Mansion researcher Jessie Serfilippi, Hamilton’s personal correspondence and ledgers show he not only bought and sold enslaved persons for his in-laws, but actually possessed and hired-out his own human chattels.

Whoops. The play didn’t have a song about that.

Hamilton rewrites America’s founding figures to match modern progressive fantasies instead of historical reality.

Alexander Hamilton’s record on slavery wasn’t mentioned, because progressive old theater kids can’t handle the truth.

But this fake nonsense spills directly into movements like “No Kings,” which sell themselves as patriotic but are really built on theater-kid mythology. The slogans, emotion, and simplified good-versus-evil history all go back to Broadway activism and marketing movements.

READ MORE: Mike Benz reveals the shadowy Obama bigwig who was secretly attached to Epstein…

“No Kings” isn’t a serious historical argument. It’s political cosplay built on a musical that swapped facts for feelings.

Annual Ad-Free Subscription… Go ad-free and read the history they’d rather rewrite.

Donate… Support reporting that calls out political cosplay disguised as patriotism.

Sign up for our email list… Get the stories that break the bubble before the bubble breaks you.

NEWSFEED — FOLLOW ON X — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL — BLUESKY