Historical Denialism and Education: Insights into the Chilean Far-Right’s Agenda

Original article: Negacionismo histórico y educación: Apuntes en torno al proyecto de la ultraderecha chilena By Fabian Cabaluz D. 1 It took just one month of José Antonio Kast’s administration to gather enough evidence to assert that historical denialism is an integral component of the Chilean far-right’s agenda. To support this claim, we will provide a concise overview of the concept of «historical denialism», present some manifestations of denialism that surfaced during the first month of the government, and finally, outline challenges to confront historical denialism from an educational and pedagogical perspective.

I. Understanding Historical Denialism The concept of historical denialism 2 emerged alongside contemporary genocidal experiences and crimes against humanity that began in the 20th century. In this context, initial reflections on denialism originated in historiography, where recognized denialist historians such as Paul Rassiner and Bernard Lewis are noted.

Conversely, historians and philosophers like Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Yves Ternon, and Donatella Di Cesare have conducted in-depth analyses of genocidal experiences perpetrated against groups such as Armenians, Jews, Bengalis, Cambodians, Guatemalans, and Palestinians. These studies have raised alarms about various strategies used to distort, omit, or manipulate history. Subsequently, the concept gained prominence in the 1990s as European societies advanced regulations categorizing denialism as a crime.

It is characterized as a type of «hate speech» that promotes violence, discrimination, and racism, while praising genocide and state terrorism. Generally speaking, historical denialism comprises discursive, practical, political, communicational, legal, cultural, and educational operations aiming to publicly deny genocides and crimes against humanity substantiated by historical evidence. Moreover, denialism has a precise goal: to evade the legal and political responsibilities of perpetrators.

It’s crucial to note that denialism does not emerge post-crime; it accompanies human rights violations, being intrinsic to the genocidal act. Hence, one must understand the existence of clandestine detention centers, torture, and murder, as well as the systematic and planned exercise of forced disappearance as linked to this framework. In other words, denialism is a part of a broader mechanism that seeks to conceal genocidal, criminal acts or state terrorism to assure the impunity of perpetrators.

Specialized literature indicates a consensus on the existence of at least five mechanisms associated with denialism. The first mechanism involves simply distorting reality or misrepresenting established facts without scientific, historiographical, or philosophical arguments, relying instead on simplistic opinions, faith-based beliefs, or conspiracy theories. In this sense, denialism seeks to challenge or undermine historical truth, delegitimizing and falsifying evidence and testimonies related to crimes against humanity, primarily from unfounded and irrational positions.

Furthermore, despite presenting itself as an objective «point of view» on recent history, denialism is not a naive perspective; rather, it is a revalidation and perpetuation of genocide or state terrorism, essentially continuing criminal acts under a different guise. The second denialism mechanism involves victimizing the perpetrators of genocide and state terrorism and consequently blaming the victims. This represents a clear ideological construction that inverts reality, attempting to portray perpetrators as if their actions were services rendered or duties fulfilled.

Efforts are made to empathize with the everyday lives of these criminals 3, who, instead of being judged and condemned by state powers, ought to be pardoned 4, celebrated, or appreciated for their service to the nation’s well-being. Another mechanism employed by historical denialism is to question and minimize the number of individuals who fell victim to genocidal experiences or state terrorism 5. This mechanism is significant as it does not seek accurate information on the number of victims but rather aims to discredit and delegitimize both the victims 6 and the organizations fighting for memory, justice, and truth.

A fourth mechanism of historical denialism refers to the vandalism of monuments, symbols, and memory sites 7, which play an essential role in generating conditions for non-repetition by educating the public on the significance of promoting and safeguarding human rights and democracy. The vandalism of memory spaces—which have tremendous cultural wealth—seeks to convey messages that legitimize dictatorship and repression, intimidate those advocating for justice and truth, and exalt far-right groups while disparaging the memory of left-wing militants who were victims of state terrorism. Lastly, there exists a fifth mechanism, particularly relevant for Latin American countries that experienced civic-military dictatorships, associated with the «two demons theory».

This theory is characterized by obfuscating societal conflict through a dual movement, equating state violence with the actions of organizations that have promoted armed struggle while attempting to distinguish between violence against ordinary citizens. From this perspective, it is crucial for a democratic society to judge both forms of violence, seeking to equate state terrorism with social struggles, which diminishes the responsibilities of repressors. According to the «two demons theory», it is essential to also judge members of revolutionary organizations, as they would be co-responsible for the exceptional circumstances leading to dictatorial governments.

In this regard, proponents advocate for visibility of «other victims» or the development of a «complete memory» that encompasses the deaths of police and military personnel. II. Current Expressions of Denialist Project in Chile To continue analyzing denialism from a more concrete dimension, we wish to illustrate some recent expressions of denialism promoted by the far-right government of José Antonio Kast.

Let’s take a look: A clear expression relates to the appointment of ministers directly linked to the dictator. At the end of January this year, José Antonio Kast, as the elected president, announced who would serve as ministers and state undersecretaries. In this context, two names sparked controversy among memory and human rights organizations in the country: Fernando Rabat Celis, Minister of Justice and Human Rights, and Fernando Barros Tocornal, Minister of Defense.

Organizations denounced that Rabat participated in defending Pinochet following his detention in London, while Barros defended the dictator in cases like Operation Colombo, where 119 compatriots disappeared. Consistently, in March of this year, both ministers were publicly denounced by 115 human rights organizations 8 for their involvement in the legal defense of the dictator. According to these organizations, the appointed officials do not meet acceptable ethical or political standards for a democratic society because both have publicly denied, justified, and relativized human rights violations at different stages of their careers.

This decision was politically interpreted as a sign of contempt for the victims of state terrorism. Another expression of denialism in Chile relates to the withdrawal of the Third National Human Rights Plan (2026-2029) by the government, executed in mid-March when it was removed from the General Comptroller’s Office, where it was pending approval for legal validity. This decision coincided with the retraction of 43 environmental decrees and the route negotiation project.

The Plan, withdrawn by the far-right, was developed through dialogue among public bodies and human rights organizations, containing 175 actions for the ensuing four years. The move alarmed organizations such as Amnesty International, which denounced that human rights policies should not depend on the political will of governments but must be state matters. Perhaps the most glaring expression of denialism has been the dismantling of the National Search Plan.

It is widely known that the Plan was initiated during the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the military coup and represented one of the most significant advances regarding memory, justice, and truth during Gabriel Boric’s government. Since the end of March, Kast’s far-right government has started dismantling this public policy through two measures. The first was announced publicly on March 29 when the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, Iván Poduje, declared that the expropriation process of 117 hectares of the former Colonia Dignidad would be halted.

This site was founded in the 1960s by Nazi leader Paul Schäfer and was used during the civic-military dictatorship as a center for detention, torture, murder, and forced disappearance. Numerous evidences have confirmed the existence of human rights violations 9 at the former Colonia Dignidad, which is why it was declared a «site of interest» for expropriation by the state to advance constructing a memory site. Despite this, Poduje decided to halt the measure, justifying it with budgetary arguments.

The second measure was revealed on March 31 when the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights chose to dismiss key leadership positions within the National Search Plan, using administrative and budgetary justifications. These two measures have been widely condemned by human rights organizations, as they are viewed as deeply ideological and political decisions reflecting contempt for victims and an undervaluation of memory, truth, justice, and reparation policies in the country. Two other expressions of denialism can be linked to projects of commutation of sentences and pardons for police and military personnel.

At the beginning of March, the Senate approved a bill proposed by right-wing senators Francisco Chahuán, Luz Ebensperger, Luciano Cruz Coke, Alejandro Kusanovic, and Carlos Kuschel, which aimed to commute prison sentences for about twelve thousand inmates, including those convicted of severe crimes, crimes against humanity, and sexual offenses, under humanitarian arguments such as health (chronic illnesses) or advanced age. Unsurprisingly, this measure is directed at those convicted who are incarcerated at the Punta Peuco prison, which incited strong debates and criticism from human rights organizations and left-wing sectors. Additionally, at the end of March, the President of the Republic, in an interview with the Association of Radio Broadcasters of Chile, ARCHI, declared that he would utilize his powers to issue presidential pardons and grant benefits to police and military personnel convicted of crimes committed during the popular uprising.

Although no names or number of «beneficiaries» of this measure were disclosed, there is a tangible risk that individuals like Patricio Maturana, sentenced for shooting a tear gas canister at current Senator Fabiola Campillay, and José Faúndez, a soldier convicted of murdering Romario Veloz in La Serena, could be pardoned. Kast’s arguments have highlighted the importance of «forgiving» those who «fulfilled their duty» during the uprising. Political voices have expressed discontent with the proposal, as it starkly contrasts with ensuring a society that respects human rights.

Finally, it is evident that denialism is also reflected in the government’s international politics and its stance on the genocide of the Palestinian people. Multiple evidences support the assertion that the current government is aligned with Israeli Zionism, evidenced by diplomatic gestures and commitments to strengthen political and commercial relations with Israel. In this direction, Kast’s government appointed Eitan Bloch, a declared Zionist linked directly to Netanyahu’s government, as international advisor, placing him on the second floor of the presidential palace.

The government’s position, which strengthens ties with a country internationally accused of genocide against the Palestinian people and crimes against humanity, has been denounced as an affront to the entire Arab and Palestinian community in our country and is a blatant signal of the denialist component of the Chilean far-right. III. Historical Denialism and Educational Struggles Given all that has been discussed, the question arises of how to confront the historical denialism propagated by the Chilean far-right.

The international experience, particularly in Europe, shows that penalizing denialism has helped set limits to hate speech and establish minimum standards functioning as guarantees of non-repetition. Penalizing denialism serves as a means to prevent discourses and practices that apologize for genocide and crimes against humanity. However, combating denialism cannot merely be seen as a legal or penal issue, but must also engage in a battle of ideas, in media, virtual networks, culture, and education.

In this vein, we are convinced that the educational field can and must challenge denialist discourses and practices, meaning it must take part in the ongoing disputes surrounding collective memory. In this direction, questions can be posed: What role can educators, cultural workers, teachers, and students play in schools, universities, and educational spaces? What actions can be taken by organizations that have historically fought to defend memory, justice, truth, and human rights?

What types of measures and actions can be conducted from memory sites? How can we articulate the work and struggles of schools, universities, cultural centers, and memory sites in this area? What essential aspects of memory pedagogy are crucial for current times?

From our perspective, addressing denialist discourses and practices in education presents several challenges for those engaged in the complex task of educating. Therefore, we would like to propose some challenges and possibilities. It is important to emphasize something that may seem tautological, yet it is critical: within educational spaces (schools, universities, memory sites, cultural centers, etc.

), we need to work and strive to reposition the value of scientific and critical knowledge. This means advocating for a type of knowledge based on rigorous and systematic research. Yet it is not enough; championing scientific and critical knowledge also implies advocating for truth, countering distortions, and reversing reality, thereby contributing to dismantling exploitative and domineering social relations.

The goal is to promote knowledge that seeks to understand the complexity of social life and improve our living conditions, additionally aligning with social justice, human dignity, and planetary sustainability. Moreover, it is essential to make institutional and collective efforts to create spaces to analyze and understand what denialism is and how it operates, as well as the hate discourses within our societies. It is crucial that educational environments condemn, disseminate, and collectively reflect upon the goals and characteristics of denialist discourses and practices to recognize their expressions within society easily.

Some guiding questions for collective reflection might be: What arguments support denialist discourses and practices? Why is there an attempt to victimize perpetrators while protecting victims? Why are the numbers of victims of genocide or state terrorism questioned?

What is accomplished with acts of vandalism against memory sites? What is intended with arguments that seek to equate or draw parallels between state violence and popular violence? An additional point relates to the importance of critically addressing the «two demons theory» in educational contexts, which, as we have pointed out, has resurfaced alongside the far-right in Latin America.

In discussing this with children, youth, and the wider society, it is vital to socialize and debate key elements of this theory, as it is a mistake to blur societal conflict and violence, both of which are daily elements shaping our lived reality. Thus, rather than omitting or judging, efforts must focus on analyzing and understanding these phenomena in their concrete manifestations. The same applies to the types of violence manifesting in society; clearly, state violence cannot be equated with popular violence, as their purposes, expressions, repertoires, and resources differ greatly.

Ultimately, we wish to emphasize that the presence of violence in educational spaces cannot merely result in an abstract condemnation but should aim for critical comprehension. Another challenge we can propose is the necessity for educational spaces to avoid getting lost in loose ends or fragments of the public debate, focusing collective efforts on understanding how various bills, programs, and policies articulate into a coherent and systematic political agenda. In other words, it is essential to grasp how the political initiatives of the far-right unfold and how they inundate public debate with a multitude of themes, proposals, and projects, which then present limited opportunities for sequential responses.

For critical educational environments, it is vital to apply numerous analytical and interpretive efforts to produce a reading with aspirations of totality, comprehending the broader picture, and being capable of responding accordingly. In other terms, it is crucial not to lose sight of fragments but to strive to analyze how the various initiatives of the far-right interact and to build strategic resistance actions. Finally, it is essential to stress the importance of delving deeper into the recent history of our country within educational spaces: to meticulously address the history of the Unidad Popular, the principal processes that marked the civic-military dictatorship, the tensions and conflicts associated with the post-dictatorship, the recent experience of popular unrest, and the disputes within the two constitutional conventions, among many other socially relevant themes or issues.

For decades, critical traditions within educational and pedagogical fields have emphasized the need to promote critical thinking, historical consciousness, rational public debate, political action, and the cultivation of collective memory. From this, a rich agenda for action could emerge. Thus, the struggles against denialist discourses and practices are vital in today’s context, as denialism pertains not only to the past but also to the present and future, for it seeks to destroy memory and induce forgetfulness, contributing to shaping societal projects.

Paraphrasing Walter Benjamin, we might say that we must contest the past, present, and future; otherwise, even our dead will not rest in peace. Fabian Cabaluz D. 1 Notes shared at the Regional Seminar «Human Rights and Social Protest: Dialogues on Pedagogies in Resistance and Reparative Frameworks», held on Thursday, April 9 and Friday, April 10 at the Memory Site La Providencia, Antofagasta.

2 For a deeper understanding of the historical and theoretical aspects of denialism, refer to the text: «Repertories: Perspectives and Debates in Human Rights Terms. 1. Denialism», published by the Human Rights Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of the Nation, Argentina, 2023.

3 The image portraying «helpless grandparents» or the «elderly» with «chronic and terminal illnesses» serving sentences in Punta Peuco is a clear example of this. 4 An example of pardoning genocide perpetrators was President Carlos Saúl Menem of Argentina, who pardoned around 1,200 convicted for crimes against humanity between 1989 and 1990 using the infamous «Impunity Laws». 5 The numbers of victims in genocidal experiences or crimes against humanity are generally vague, as information is concealed, records and reports are reduced and distorted, and efforts are intentionally made to obscure information and generate impunity.

6 It is not surprising that, periodically, instances arise in which victims of state terrorism allegedly abused reparative policies for personal financial gain. Chilean far-right parties have been particularly insidious regarding these instances. 7 For more details, refer to the article by Carolina Aguilera and Manuela Badilla «Human rights memorials in turmoil: Antagonistic memories in contemporary Chile» at https://www.

sciencedirect. com 8 See: https://www. elciudadano.

com/organizacion-social/rechazo-ddhh-ministros-kast-defensa-pinochet/03/12/ and https://cronicadigital. cl/organizaciones-de-derechos-humanos-rechazan-nombramientos-de-ministros-de-kast-vinculados-a-la-defensa-de-pinochet/ 9 See the National Human Rights Institute report from June 2025, which denounced practices encompassing almost the entire catalog of human rights violations at the former Colonia Dignidad, now Villa Baviera: https://bibliotecadigital. indh.

cl/. Another piece of evidence relates to the Santiago Court of Appeals ruling that confirmed the sentence against Willi Malessa; it is recommended to see a report from the Corporation for the Defense of People’s Rights, CODEPU: https://codepu. cl/ 10 It is important to mention that there have been various detractors against penalizing denialism, among which three main positions can be acknowledged: some view it as a dangerous restriction on freedom of expression; others maintain that it risks establishing protected memories which, in turn, could hierarchize memories; and finally, some argue that penalizing the domain of ideas may backfire on leftist forces, as it will eventually return as a counterattack against their proposals.

This debate is complex, involving ethical, political, and legal aspects. 11 It is essential to review how in the civic-military dictatorships of Latin America, education ministries have been vehicles for producing denialist ideas: they have created pamphlets, decrees, reports, and educational materials that reaffirm the figure of the «internal enemy» and present perpetrators as champions of democracy, order, and the cultural traditions of our peoples.