Braden Peters, better known as Clavicular, the infamous and rather controversial internet personality known for his unconventional “looksmaxxing” techniques, was in Israel this past week.
The looksmaxxing techniques include promoting facial “bone smashing” (the practice of hitting one’s face with a hammer), proudly taking steroids, and even using crystal meth as an appetite suppressant, all in the hopes of looking his physical best.
Clavicular's visit sparks praise and backlash
Since he arrived in the Holy Land, the online streamer and influencer has sparked various reactions.
To his roughly 11 million followers, Peters is the looksmaxxing pioneer who broke his own face with a hammer in pursuit of the perfect jawline, a walking extreme, but a familiar and even beloved one.
Some Israelis have celebrated his visit on those same terms, as a sign of desperately needed support from high-profile influencers at a time when Israel is more isolated than ever.
Others argue that embracing a figure like Peters, who several months ago was sued over claims of sexual assault, battery, and fraud in Miami-Dade County, is understandably not what Israel ought to stand for.
The rebuke is loud, and it’s earned.
Peters has sung along to Kanye West’s “Heil Hitler” song, while giving a Nazi salute, in footage taken alongside neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes.
So when Shira Braun, the IDF soldier behind the Israeli military’s TikTok account, spent much of the weekend flirting with Clavicular, embracing him on camera, and showing him her personal login access to the IDF’s official accounts, the backlash came quickly.
It’s since been reported that she was reprimanded and demoted to a cook role.
Others, however, took the opposite approach entirely.
Some rolled out the welcome mat, and when it came, it came from an unlikely source.
Yossi Farro, a Chabad outreach influencer known for wrapping tefillin with celebrities and right-wing streamers alike, was among the first to bring Peters into the fold after the “Heil Hitler” clip surfaced, and he’s been heavily criticized for it.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, himself no stranger to controversy and eclectic causes, publicly accused Farro of committing a “chilul Hashem,” and has incessantly attacked him in recent days.
In the midst of it all, though, the visit begs the question: In a time of growing international isolation, should Israel turn away imperfect supporters, or embrace them despite their baggage?
Should Israel embrace controversial supporters?
Let me be clear: Braden “Clavicular” Peters is not a saint; far from it. He centrally represents the misogynistic online “manosphere” targeting young men through masculinity-coaching content, and puts on this macho, tough external appearance while obviously hiding the heavily insecure, predatory, and simplistic man inside.
The mere fact he’s anywhere is a sad reflection of the world today, and yet, it is just that: a reflection, not an aberration.
The case for reaching new audiences
Whatever his flaws, Peters reaches an audience, young, online, and largely disengaged from anything Israel-related; an audience that conventional hasbara simply doesn’t touch.
To them, his visit communicated something no embassy statement could: that Israel is alive, functioning, and even enjoyable to be part of.
His platform exists whether critics approve of it or not, and recognizing his moral failures doesn’t require pretending that his reach has no value.
He will be seen. His content will be consumed.
So why not showcase Israel’s exciting nightlife, its booming economy and culture, its cuisine and people, to viewers who have seen nothing but death and destruction in Gaza on their feeds daily?
To show his audience that Israel is a free and open democracy, with Arabs, Christians, and Jews all together, with normal life on the streets, is that not most certainly a valuable effort?
But beyond the practical PR argument, I don’t believe that highlighting Israel’s virtues on his stream validates his own imperfections and wrongdoing; it simply capitalizes on an already existing platform for the good.
If anything, is that not better than leaving his audience to see exclusively the garbage content he typically puts out?
Turning a space known for lies into a vehicle for something true - that, to me, is worth something. The world at large is full of darkness, full of abuse and manipulation.
Full of the same waste Peters promotes on his streams, and yet, at the heart of the muck lies the few: the good. What makes something good, what makes something worthwhile, is the refusal to look away from the dark. Instead, to run at it.
We are supposed to be a “light unto the nations.”
That doesn’t happen by only appearing in spaces we’re comfortable with.
Critics of this visit aren’t wrong that Peters is a bad messenger, but the alternative isn’t a better messenger. For most of this audience, it’s no messenger at all.
How are we supposed to be that “light” by constantly retreating? By hiding and staying out of the very spaces where the next generation is spending its time?
To say we have good but need to conceal it from the world because the venue is imperfect, I believe, is just wrong. It’s missing the point.
It is missing the bigger picture.
Zoom out of this one individual. This isn’t really about one influencer. It’s about the millions of people in his orbit who, for a moment, saw something about Israel they wouldn’t have seen anywhere else.
Why shut them out?