A recent article inCurrent Affairslaunched a scathing attack on conservative commentator Candace Owens, questioning not just her views, but the very capacity for rational thought of those who listen to her. Author Nathan J. Robinson, armed with impressive academic credentials, presented a lengthy critique, yet remarkably devoid of concrete evidence to support his claims.
The piece felt less like a reasoned debate and more like a prolonged expression of frustration. Robinson repeatedly implied a disconnect from reality on Owens’ part, but offered no substantive refutation of her arguments – no data, no facts, only assertions. The core of his argument seemed to hinge on the unsettling question: what does it say about society that anyone finds her perspective compelling?
This line of questioning is particularly jarring when considering the widespread acceptance of psychiatric diagnoses and treatments. Robinson’s casual dismissal of Owens’ audience with a reference to psychiatric evaluation overlooks a troubling reality: a significant portion of the American population relies on prescription drugs simply to function daily. Millions are medicated, not because of demonstrable biological abnormalities, but because of diagnoses built on subjective interpretations of behavior.
The modern mental health model, once hailed as a breakthrough, is now facing increasing scrutiny for its reliance on diagnoses lacking scientific basis. There’s a growing recognition that these labels aren’t identifying illnesses, but rather categorizing behaviors deemed undesirable. Consider ADHD, often diagnosed in childhood – a label applied to traits like inattention and impulsivity that are, in many cases, simply part of normal development.
The “treatment” for these often-vague diagnoses frequently involves powerful stimulants like Ritalin and Adderall, classified as Schedule II controlled substances by the DEA due to their high potential for abuse. These drugs, chemically similar to cocaine, are prescribed to millions, including shockingly, children under the age of one, despite the fact that pharmaceutical companies themselves admit they don’t fully understand how these medications work within the brain.
Package inserts for Ritalin openly acknowledge the “mode of action…is not completely understood,” relying on vague terms like “presumably activates.” Yet, prescriptions continue to be written, and young minds are altered, all based on a system built on uncertain science. In 2020 alone, over nine and a half million prescriptions for ADHD drugs were filled in the US, a staggering number that raises serious questions about overdiagnosis and overmedication.
Robinson’s critique takes another turn when he questions the “delusional” nature of Owens’ beliefs. However, this accusation feels strikingly hypocritical given his staunch support for transgender rights. Is believing one’s gender identity differs from biological sex any less “delusional” than holding conservative political views? The question highlights the subjective nature of belief and the dangers of pathologizing differing perspectives.
The article also dismisses Owens’ scrutiny of the Sandy Hook shooting, aligning her with figures like Alex Jones. However, a deeper investigation into the event reveals unsettling inconsistencies. Crucially, none of the projectiles recovered from the scene could be definitively matched to the weapon allegedly used. This critical piece of physical evidence remains largely ignored by mainstream media and even, remarkably, by the families affected.
Before readily dismissing dissenting voices as “crazy,” it’s vital to remember that open discourse, even of “outrageous” ideas, is essential to a healthy society. As Charlie Kirk aptly stated, “you should be allowed to say outrageous things.” The true danger lies not in the expression of unconventional beliefs, but in the unquestioning acceptance of narratives presented as absolute truth, particularly when those narratives are underpinned by a flawed and often harmful system of psychiatric diagnosis.
Ultimately, the attack on Candace Owens serves as a stark reminder of the need for critical thinking and a healthy skepticism towards authority. It compels us to question the foundations of our beliefs and to demand evidence-based reasoning, especially when dealing with matters of mental health and societal well-being.
