Last year, I had a wonderful conversation with Jordan Peterson. We enjoyed it so much that we ran over our studio time by an hour, and – in the end – agreed to pick up our discussion at a later date. I’ve been interviewed by a lot of people over the years, and – given the philosophical differences – I don’t say this lightly: Jordan was one of the most patient, considerate, and thoughtful interviewers I’ve had the pleasure of speaking with.

The Peterson I spoke with reminded me of the man he was before he joined the The Daily Wire – the passionate psychology professor whose colourful rhetoric brought welcome relief to Harvard’s dusty lecture halls. But that was the Peterson of old. Outside of our conversation, he’s the Peterson of new. These days, he follows just three rules for life: offend, trend, spend. Cue Tommy Robinson.

In the UK, we know who Tommy Robinson is (real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon). He’s our local Islamophobe – our mortgage manipulator, defamation dealer, court contempter – who dabbles in assault and nuanced hermeneutical analysis of the Qur’an. He’s our working-class anti-hero. His antics are always landing him in trouble – a constant cycle of chaos, courtroom drama, and public outcry. Most recently, in October 2024, Robinson was jailed for 18 months for defying court orders; he had been instructed to discontinue his libellous claims against an innocent teenage boy. Tommy’s followers raised £100,000 towards his court case, at which – and I’m not kidding – Tommy pleaded guilty.

Jordan Peterson spent last year promoting Robinson’s ideas across his platforms. On YouTube alone, Peterson’s output on Robinson amassed over 9 million views. The consequence of this, in Peterson’s own words, is that Robinson’s ‘reputation was much enhanced’. The impact of his cheerleading should not be understated.

Last year, I appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience – more on that below. Since then, I’ve been told by several reputable sources that Peterson has been encouraging Rogan to have Tommy Robinson on his show. Anybody following Peterson’s content won’t be surprised.

I expect that Peterson has also been promoting Robinson to his friend Elon Musk. Musk took to X this week, calling upon his army of porn bots to ‘Free Tommy Robinson!’ (The pinned post was viewed over 70 million times.) Musk proceeded to share several videos from Robinson, which even Nigel Farage – a recent ally of Musk – had to distance himself from (“He’s not with me mate!”). In what may end up being the quickest U-Turn of 2025, Musk responded by calling for Farage’s removal as leader of Reform UK. The BBC reported, ‘It is unclear what has compelled Musk to turn on Farage.’ I think Tommy Robinson could hazard a guess.

Peterson is clearly in a position of power; his audience and friends trust his word. But Peterson should know better.

Back in August, I raised these concerns on an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience. I told Joe that Peterson’s promotion of people like Robinson was irresponsible. To my surprise, Rogan shared a similar view. Rogan told me we should ‘shun’ or deplatform people with morally reprehensible views. I agreed, and (accurately) paraphrased an example of Robinson’s dangerous rhetoric:

‘Palestine’, Robinson wrote, ‘is a shithole full of inbred Islamist parasites and terrorists.’

I have no doubt that everybody reading those words knows they’re wrong. But, of course, Robinson doubled down. After I referenced his words on Rogan, Tommy offered the following explanation:

‘When I say that ‘MOST’ Palestinians are terrorist supporting, inbred parasites, I'm speaking FACTUALLY’.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Thousands of innocent women and children are being killed in Palestine, and Tommy Robinson took to X to describe the victims as ‘inbred parasites’. In over three hours of conversation, Peterson made no mention of Robinson’s genocidal outbursts. He claims to have been following Robinson’s career with keen interest, and so – as a former Harvard researcher – it strikes me as odd that Peterson’s keen interest has revealed no awareness of Robinson’s dangerous, dehumanising, and (FACTUALLY) dubious rhetoric. It would take some fuzzy logic to see this as anything other than self-interested, wilful ignorance.

Tommy’s reaction to my appearance on Joe Rogan was, even by Robinson’s standards, dramatic. I put this down to his dismay at Rogan’s teasing that Robinson had ‘a face you could hate’. And so, in his sorrow, Tommy did the most British thing imaginable…he expressed his feelings through poetry.

As usual, the highly educated moron misrepresents me.

         Facts certainly do not care,

About a slimey, idealogue like Jack Symes,

         Or his mealy-mouthed words,

         Which he utters from both sides,

                  Of his disingenuous mouth.

After penning his poem, Tommy rallied his followers through a series of posts. What followed were thousands of messages from people who, for some reason, feel as if they’re being wrongly accused of intolerance – Jack Symes is a ‘fag’, a ‘retard’, a ‘nonce’. While I’m grateful for the office nicknames, I was surprised to find a friendly email from one of Tommy’s associates inviting me to a public debate. I didn’t respond then, and I won’t be responding now.

In pursuit of the truth, we have to explore controversial ideas – to help ourselves and others see reason. But that’s not always the best course of action. There are times when people are too far gone – when they’re beyond the pale of civil discourse. Simone de Beauvoir put it best: 

When a young sixteen-year-old Nazi died crying, ‘Heil Hitler!’ … The desirable thing would be to re-educate this misled youth … But the urgency of the struggle forbids this slow labour.

There are those among us who wear reason like a mask, who speak not to persuade or understand but to manipulate and obscure. Their aim is not dialogue, but dominance; not discourse, but deception.

If Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk want to sail off the edge of the Earth in the Great Ship of Fools, crewed by flat earthers and commanded by Rear Admiral Tommy Robinson, then so be it.

Sure, it’s a spectacle, but it’s not worth climbing aboard for.

Attributions

This article was originally commissioned by The Spectator; however, they opted not to proceed with its publication.

With thanks to Samuel Symes and Paul Taylor for their comments on earlier drafts of this piece.

The penultimate line of this article is borrowed, with gratitude, from Galen Strawson.

Original image courtesy of X-Press Magazine.