Before my recent AT post nominating Rachel Dolezal as the new face of the $10 bill (which Treasury intends to feminize in 2020), I hadn’t realized that this academic Henny-Penny had years before lectured us about how all the old white men on our shamelessly sexist currency have deranged our collective psyche and society.

In her 2012 YouTube video, Professor Henny-Penny – 100% Caucasian – mimics Rastafarian dreadlocks (rather than the Angela-Davis dynamite blowout she presently parodies) while she smarmily sips white wine and rambles on “about something we carry in the palms of our hands on a daily basis, hopefully, that reminds us every single day of our lives who is in charge.  And that would be something green[.]”

I suppose her “hopefully” means she hopes our palms are daily carrying “something green,” but even a professor of Henny-Pennyism at Eastern Washington University should know our palms’ carrying something “hopefully” isn’t the same thing as hoping our palms are carrying it.

She then directs her viewers to a painting (presumably her own) displayed behind her and depicting a black boy in a yellow shirt staring in the direction of an actual $1, $20, $50, and $100 bill plastered to the painting’s surface.  I presume that makes the painting worth at least $171.

She rants on a bit about the “print-making-money” images of George Washington ($1 bill), Andrew Jackson ($20 bill), U.S. Grant ($50 bill), and Benjamin Franklin ($100 bill), as well as Abraham Lincoln’s image on “bas-relief coins” – one of which she helpfully holds up.  Unprophetically, however, she neglects Alexander Hamilton ($10 bill) before asking, “So what does this mean – this constant daily reminder of who’s in charge?  What psychological or sociological effect does that have on us and our children?”

Ah, yes, the children – like the ones, for example, entrusted to Professor Henny-Penny’s academic hysteria.

What it means, she answers herself, is “a lot of our lives are driven by money ... [that] has imagery on it that has ... a very political propaganda element in terms of reminding us that older white men were in charge[.] ... We don’t have any gender diversity, age diversity, or ethnicity diversity.”

The nation does, in fact, have a great deal of gender, age, and ethnic diversity (Professor Henny-Penny’s impersonation of a black women having modestly increased the latter).  Indeed, we have so much “ethnicity diversity” – which our ethnically diverse president has done everything in his power to recently augment – that, by about mid-century, those pesky old white men (not to mention younger and more fairer-sexed persons of the Caucasian persuasion) will become a minority.  Praise be!  Hallelujah! 

What Professor Henny-Penny actually means, of course, is that we don’t have any gender, age, or ethnic diversity displayed on our national currency.  About that much, at least, she’s right.  Might that have had anything to do with the American Republic’s founders and facilitators having all been Northern European adults of the male persuasion?  Heaven forbid!  There are only old white men on our currency!  The sky is falling!  What shall we do?    

“This is,” Professor Henny-Penny (indicating Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Franklin) concludes, “what we have.  We have older white men on our currency.  So what does that do to us as an image, [as a] part of our history?  How does it affect us psychologically?”

Well, it does.  A lot, actually.  And, if we’re Americans first – rather than females first; Millennials first; ethnics first; or meretricious, transracial, bisexual academics first – then the old white men on our currency can only enhance our image of ourselves as Americans who’re psychologically happy as hell we’re not the Zimbabweans who are currently exchanging their 100-trillion Zimbabwean bills for the U.S. equivalent of 40 cents.  I don’t think anyone’s portrait is on that stupefying Zimbabwean bill (looks more like three Zimbabwean rocks to me), but I’d sure rather have Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Franklin in my good old American pocket.  How would attempting to buy a cup of Starbucks coffee with a couple of 100-trillion Zimbabwean bills “affect us psychologically”?

More to the point, how did Dolezal’s professorships psychologically affect her students at North Idaho College and Eastern Washington University – where she impersonated a black female, racially and sexually entitled to fill her students’ heads with academic revisionism at the expense of parents who thought she was educating their children to carry forward the American Dream?

After all, what could Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Franklin conceivably have had to do with the American Dream?  Not to mention Jefferson ($2 bill), Lincoln ($5 bill), and Hamilton ($10 bill – at least until 2020)?

The founding fathers weren’t black.  They were white.  The founding fathers weren’t women.  They were men.  Get over it.  And be thankful for it.  Because their wisdom, forethought, fortunes, and sacred honor still preserve whatever’s left of the American Dream.

America’s presently addled psyche and society pose immense concerns about perpetuating the founding American Dream these men bequeathed us.   Among the least of those concerns, however, is whether some female social activist (black or white) replaces any of the deceased Northern European men who now grace our currency.

The main threats to the American Dream are political correctness, the academic revisionists who preach it, and the central government whose overweening growth it nourishes.  If the American Dream is to survive, we must transform not the nation, but its academia, which instructs and informs its future teachers, journalists, lawyers, sociologists, politicians, judges, bureaucrats, managers, administrators, artists, and entrepreneurs.  The politically correct legions of this present civil intelligentsia didn’t just spring sui generis one fine cultural morning from barren soil.  They were all assiduously cultivated in the political indoctrination hothouses of the contemporary American academy, whose revisionist humanities departments now lie blanketed deep in the febrile intellectual manure of relativism, equalitarianism, and deconstructionism.  The nurseries of academe are ground zero of the conservative counter reaction.  All else is but useless temporizing.

And Professor Henny-Penny is the poster child of all that ails the contemporary American academy.  I say “child” because no responsible adult would ever permit himself to embark upon the bizarre flight from reality Rachel Dolezal epitomizes – let alone entrust his own child to her academic malpractice.

Henny-Pennyism’s inevitable result is the politically correct mass hysteria that always leads society to the lair of the ever hungry Foxy-Woxy.

And we all know what there transpires.

N.B. The Dolezal YouTube video referred to in this article is, for some unknown reason, mislabeled “Rachel Dolezal lectures students on history of black hairstyles.”