Provoked with Darryl Cooper and Scott Horton

Episode 15 (LIVE) – Special Guest: Auron MacIntyre – The Reason Magazine Hit Piece
Date: October 4, 2025

Episode Overview

In this provocative live episode of "Provoked," hosts Scott Horton and Darryl Cooper welcome special guest Auron MacIntyre to address a recent "hit piece" published by Reason magazine. The conversation takes aim at the magazine's characterization of MacIntyre, Cooper, and other figures from the dissident right as dangerous radicals obsessed with Carl Schmitt, examining how allegations of extremism are weaponized in political discourse. The trio discusses the limits of constitutionalism, the true roots of political order, the friend-enemy distinction, and the state of American governance—along with the broader culture war dynamics at play.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Reason Magazine “Hit Piece” and the Carl Schmitt Accusation

[04:00–08:40]

• Opening Shots: The hosts mock Reason magazine for labeling them and MacIntyre as extremists and “Schmittians,” sarcastically distancing themselves as “regime libertarians.”

  • Scott Horton: “I disavow Reason magazine as all libertarians do...they're the regime libertarians, which is a very, very small subset...” [04:00]

• Schmitt Guilt-by-Association:

  • Auron MacIntyre clarifies that he’s interviewed most of the article’s "dangerous" figures except Schmitt himself (“that would require some necromancy") and emphasizes how the article conflates any engagement with philosophical texts as endorsement of their worst views.
    • Memorable quote: “If you read any philosopher, you automatically agree with everything that philosopher has ever said, which is why everyone who reads Aristotle believes that everyone is a slave...” [06:38]

• Critique of Intellectual Cooties:

  • MacIntyre bemoans the shallow reasoning—“intellectual cooties”—where reading a controversial thinker equals adopting all their positions.
  • Reason’s position is painted as a dishonest straw man: attack by association, then caveat that “actually, he didn’t really say any of this.”
    • MacIntyre: “It’s the most schizophrenic article ever... Lie, lie, lie ... oh by the way he didn’t actually say any of this. Lie, lie, lie.” [14:47]

2. Historical Context: Sovereignty, States of Exception, and Constitutionalism

[08:40–20:52]

• Philosophy Isn’t Prescription:

  • Cooper and MacIntyre argue that Schmitt wasn’t advocating for dictatorship, but explaining how power actually functions—especially in times of crisis.
  • Cooper: “Most people felt for very good reason that they were facing a choice between communism...or somebody who is willing to sweep aside the limits of the Weimar constitutional order… What could have prevented Hitler? If anything could have prevented it, it would have been a strong executive of the type that Schmitt was talking about.” [12:20]

• Sovereign's Role:

  • MacIntyre explains Schmitt’s idea that “the sovereign is he who decides on the exception”: in moments where constitutions falter, someone inevitably steps in to decide what happens—descriptively, not as a recommendation.
    • MacIntyre: "A lot of people look at Schmitt and they say, well, this is very prescriptive... I would say that most of Schmitt is descriptive." [17:53]

• Current Relevance:

  • Cooper connects this to modern governance: the “state of exception” is not hypothetical—the pandemic showed the executive already exercises unchecked powers.
    • “How could anybody go through Covid and think that we don’t already have… a sovereign that decides, ‘You know what, this is an exception’...?” [20:15]

• Administrative State and Loss of Accountability:

  • Discussion of the Chevron deference (1984), which offloaded power from elected officials to bureaucracies—creating a real sovereign that is unaccountable.
    • “What’s been the effect of that...more and more and more government action has been offloaded to this unaccountable bureaucracy that can do whatever it wants...” [24:38]

3. Ideological Roots and the American Political Crisis

[25:11–35:27]

• Foundational Thinkers:

  • MacIntyre leans more on Bertrand de Jouvenel and Aristotle—Schmitt is just one thinker, and the left has long studied him without accusation.
    • “I probably look at Bertrand de Jouvenel more than I do anyone else... the only reason to draw on Schmitt again is the fact that he’s a modernization of two critical thinkers...” [25:35]

• Misleading Charges:

  • Hosts highlight the absurdity of labeling diverse thinkers like Harzoni (a Jewish nationalist) as part of a far-right/Schmittian cabal; the “Nazi” smear has become an intellectual bludgeon.

• Constitution and Its True Meaning:

  • MacIntyre challenges the legalist view, asserting that a constitution is not just a document, but the living culture and beliefs of a people.
    • “No Constitution has ever been written by human hands...It emanates from the folkways, the traditions, the religions, the belief of the people...” [31:38]
  • The loss of constitutional culture—rather than any textual flaw—is what has doomed the American order: “You must restore yourselves to the state of the people who founded the country... It’s not about writing a better Constitution... It’s about the people’s beliefs.” [32:45]

4. The Dynamics of Anarcho-Tyranny & Friend-Enemy Distinction

[35:27–47:54]

• “Anarcho-Tyranny” in Practice:

  • Scott Horton observes that unrest is tolerated on one side (lawlessness/anarchy) while state repression falls mainly on ordinary citizens (tyranny); calls for reform often result in more government overreach instead.

• Application of Schmitt’s Concepts:

  • MacIntyre argues that modern American governance operates on Schmitt’s “friend-enemy distinction” in practice, not law.
    • “Rule of law obviously does not explain what’s happening there... It’s who the state recognizes as friend and enemy.” [44:03]
  • States/officials apply power based on who they see as in-group or out-group, whether or not this is acknowledged.

• Liberal Institutions as Illusions:

  • Institutions are never truly neutral; the charge that those who even observe this reality are treated as existential enemies in liberal discourse.
    • “There are no objective institutions. There are no neutral institutions... The minute someone pushes back on the regime, they say, ‘Oh, well, you’re asking for something ridiculous... Actually, no, I’m just recognizing where we’re at.’” [45:30]

5. Law, Exception, and Selective Enforcement

[47:18–51:42]

• Accusations of Wanting Dictatorship:
  • Horton directly presses MacIntyre: Are you really saying “forget the law, hurt the left for me”?
    • MacIntyre: “No, everything that needs to be done to stop the violent left can be done under the color of law...The problem is not that there are just not laws on the books...The problem is that we ignore them... Even the most basic level of equal application will destroy the leftist project.” [47:54]
  • The issue is not insufficient law, but selective enforcement and the need for genuine rule of law.

6. Smear Tactics and the Israel Angle

[51:42–56:15]

• Speculating Motives (Israel):
  • Horton wonders if the Reason hit piece is motivated by a desire to police right-wing views on Israel (“All good right-wingers love Israel and the ones that don’t are fascists.”) [51:32]
  • Cooper and MacIntyre note the intense pressures in public discourse—any deviation from total support for Israel brings heavy accusations.
    • MacIntyre: “I would like Israel to be like Timbuktu or...Madagascar...where I just don’t ever think about it... The only reason I have to care is if I don’t say everything they do is holy...” [54:01]
  • The “fascist” label is now secular Satan, a dehumanization intended to justify violence.

7. Defending Other Targets / Wrapping Up

[56:15–62:33]

• Solidarity with Those Smeared:

  • MacIntyre notes that Harzoni, Yarvin, and others were lumped in unfairly; points out that Yarvin, for example, is scrupulously peaceful in his advocacy.

• Final Metaphor:

  • Cooper’s sports metaphor: Reason and liberal institutions critique the right for fighting dirty in a match where the left “brings a knife into the ring.” The neutral rules are already ignored, and enforced only against one side.
    • “If you’re playing a soccer game and somebody comes over and just punches you in the face... the ref comes over and shoots you in the head. At that point, you’re not playing soccer anymore. You’re playing something else.” [59:14]

• Restoration of Normality:

  • MacIntyre’s (and Cooper’s) “radical” request: “Can you please just do the actual thing that your name is and exercise state authority? Can you just enforce the laws that are already on the books?” [61:56]
  • Not calling for revolution, but for equal rule of law and an end to selective prosecution.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On guilt-by-association with philosophers:
  Auron MacIntyre: "If you read any philosopher, you automatically agree with everything that philosopher has ever said, which is why everyone who reads Aristotle believes that everyone is a slave...” [06:38]

• On the Schmittian state of exception:
  Darryl Cooper: “How could anybody go through Covid and think that we don’t already have...a sovereign that decides, ‘You know what, this is an exception’...?” [20:15]

• On the nature of constitutions:
  Auron MacIntyre: “No Constitution has ever been written by human hands...It emanates from the folkways, the traditions, the religions, the belief of the people...” [31:38]

• On smear tactics:
  MacIntyre: "Fascism means secular Satan. In our current vocabulary. You can kill baby Hitler, he’s so evil... When they call you a fascist, that's what they're saying about you." [55:09]

• On selective enforcement of law:
  MacIntyre: “All we need is the actual law on the books... The left just has a blank check for violence. They’ve had it since the 1960s at least. So the slightest amount of legal penalty under the laws we already have is like fascism for them, because they've never had to pay a price.” [49:06]

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• [04:00] - Introductions and Reason magazine critique
• [06:38] - On guilt-by-association with philosophers
• [14:47] - On Reason’s style of smearing then caveating
• [17:20] - Explaining Carl Schmitt’s ideas descriptively
• [20:15] - Connecting the state of exception to COVID and modern executive power
• [31:38] - Redefining the constitution as lived experience
• [44:03] - Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction and policing in Portland
• [47:54] - Explicit denial of advocating for dictatorship or extralegal force
• [54:01] - The “Israel litmus test” and weaponization of antisemitism smears
• [59:14] - Cooper's “boxing match” extended metaphor
• [61:56] - Final plea: Just enforce the law equally

Conclusion

The episode delivers a robust, sometimes caustic deconstruction of a media narrative painting elements of the New Right as existential threats, contextualizing these claims in both historical philosophy and present-day realities of American governance. It reveals significant division within libertarian and right-leaning circles about the nature of law, sovereignty, and legitimate power—and the risks of smear tactics shutting down honest discourse. The conversation ends with a call for genuine rule of law, not revolution, while warning that persistent double standards and manufactured panic are driving the country away from its foundational order.