After the 1988, rather than surprisingly accepting it as otl, Pinochet refuses to step down and starts a white terror campaign to cement his rule and wipe out further opposition. The Catholic Church goes from criticizing the dictatorship to actively opposing it and does everything short of excommunicating the regime.

Say that Pinochet takes a page from Henry VIII and rather than get back in line, he starts a Chilean church that follows his social-Darwinist principles and is loyal to only him. How different could the church get from mainstream Catholicism? Would it resemble the Anglican church in any way? Would he be content merely leading the church or would he go all the way and prop himself up as the messiah to be worshipped like the Kims in North Korea?
 
Not very many people would follow him, and it would just weaken his position. A lot of Catholics are dissatisfied with what the Catholic Church has been teaching or doing over the past 50+ years but few of them start their own churches. Let's take the example of Vatican II, which is hated by traditionalist Catholics. The number of anti-Vatican II Catholics who have actually broken away (for example: Palmarians in Spain, Pope Michael, Most Holy Family Monastery, and Mary's Little Remnant in the United States) number at most around 200,000, and there's no unity among them.

As far as him creating a Protestant church, I don't think very man Catholics in Chile would convert, and it would be impossible to unite all the different Protestant denominations into one church.

As for a literal cult of personality like the Kims, I just can't see him do that. He did allow a peaceful transition of power after being defeated in an election after all. He was a dictator more in the style of Francisco Franco or Chiang Kai-shek than Kim Il-sung.

If he tried any of them, it would probably lead to his supporters abandoning him.
 
Last edited:
Only problem is, aside from the foray into spiritual matters, Pinochet did try to maintain his power despite the plebiscite. It didn’t work because critical members/institutions of the junta refused to support him. He stepped down because his position was hopeless, not out of any sense of goodwill for Chilean democracy. The Carabineros refused to comply with his attempts to create chaos in order to further justify the dictatorship, and members of the government slowly began to publicly acknowledge the results of the plebiscite and he was forced to accept it.

I think you’d need a farther back PoD to do this, although the actual stability of this iglesia del neoliberalismo is highly questionable within the context. I suspect this would alienate any supporters he had left.
 
As far as him creating a Protestant church, I don't think very man Catholics in Chile would convert, and it would be impossible to unite all the different Protestant denominations into one church.
It's not really a Protestant church than rather a Catholic church that ignores the Pope and only follows the head of state.

I think you’d need a farther back PoD to do this, although the actual stability of this iglesia del neoliberalismo is highly questionable within the context. I suspect this would alienate any supporters he had left.
I thought about that and kind of want to but I thought that extending his rule would avoid people going "He never did that otl so it's asb".
 
It's not really a Protestant church than rather a Catholic church that ignores the Pope and only follows the head of state.
If it splits with the Pope, Catholic it no longer is.
I thought about that and kind of want to but I thought that extending his rule would avoid people going "He never did that otl so it's asb".
Yeah, you’d definitely need a different political circumstance surrounding the regime if you want to try and achieve this. Personally, I think you’d be better handing this off to younger radicals within the power bloc that constituted the Pinochet dictatorship, and just have him not oppose the preaching of it. Plus, you can try and make the political situation more tense in the Southern Cone which could lend itself to further radicalism (which manifests itself in this state pseudo-religion). Maybe the left Peronistas find their way to power? Tupamaros win their urban insurgency in Uruguay? Che and his band lead a successful insurgency via foquismo in Bolivia? Maybe all three?? The only problem is that the more left wing their neighbors get, the more the Catholic Church will double down and support the Pinochet government due to protecting its own interests.

It’s sort of a difficult situation.. in order to get a result like this, you need a more radical government via credible threats to its power. The more radical it is though, the more the Catholic Church will support it (due to the alternative of being expropriated under Marxist-Leninist regimes) and so the logic of breaking with the Church doesn’t hold. The less radical it is, the less likely you will be to find any sort of popularity with this new religion. Hard to work out, but maybe could happen.

I could maybe see something where younger radicals in Chile formulate this religion focused on the idea of Chilean patria y patriotismo through religious worship. Maybe Pinochet turns a blind eye to this and let’s it become a small community in Chile. Although, the problem still remains getting it to become either popular or state sponsored.
 
Last edited:
Pinochet is taken outside the next day and delivered a fine morning meal consisting of many bullets. Regime business resumes under the control of a new General.
 
Henry burned plenty of Lutherans, enough that the English reformation was moderate Calvinist and Erasmian and not much at all Lutheran by the time he was done.
 
That's pretty ASB. Pinochet's 'positive' support - ie the people that actually liked him, were from the reactionary oligarchic traditionalist portions of Chilean society. So staunch archconservative Catholics, devoted to tradition and hierarchy. Those are the last people that would support a new church.

And honestly, the guy was a cheap, stupid thug in an expensive uniform. Suppose he would have established his own church - what's the sacraments? Helicopter rides? Having women raped by Dogs? The ceremonial expropriation of the poor to give to the wealthy? Perhaps a 'douse children with gasoline and set them on fire' festival?

The constituencies that would have supported a break away from mainstream Catholicism were all adamantly opposed to Pinochet.

Conceivably, he could have thrown his weight behind some American Neo-Nazi, Prosperity Gospel, Evangelical Protestant sect.

Frankly, he had no intention of stepping down in 1988. He wanted a tijuana donkey show that would give his regime a veneer of legitimacy beyond rule through brutality, torture centers and helicopter trips. He needed that veneer of legitimacy because he had established a long history of incompetent and brutal thuggishness. But because he was an incompetent thug, he painted himself into a corner where he had no choice but to step down.

If a man sets out to build a scaffold for his victims, but while in process, accidentally drives a six inch nail through his penis into a wooden post... well, he deserves laughter, not applaluse for his humanitarian enlightenment.
 
That's pretty ASB. Pinochet's 'positive' support - ie the people that actually liked him, were from the reactionary oligarchic traditionalist portions of Chilean society. So staunch archconservative Catholics, devoted to tradition and hierarchy. Those are the last people that would support a new church.
You don't think that when the Pope has the audacity to tell the oligarchs to actually act like Christians that the Oligarchs would start a church that practices Christianity as they define as the right way?
 
After the 1988, rather than surprisingly accepting it as otl, Pinochet refuses to step down and starts a white terror campaign to cement his rule and wipe out further opposition. The Catholic Church goes from criticizing the dictatorship to actively opposing it and does everything short of excommunicating the regime.

Say that Pinochet takes a page from Henry VIII and rather than get back in line, he starts a Chilean church that follows his social-Darwinist principles and is loyal to only him. How different could the church get from mainstream Catholicism? Would it resemble the Anglican church in any way? Would he be content merely leading the church or would he go all the way and prop himself up as the messiah to be worshipped like the Kims in North Korea?

This seems quiet unlikely if not very implausible. Pinochet was cruel dictator but not idiot. He knew his regime coming to its end and tried preserve as much as possible. He wouldn't go against Catholci Church because he would realise that such thing wouldn't work.

If Pinochet would try that, he will go down even faster than in OTL and his church is going to remain very small if not even disappear totally.
 
After the 1988, rather than surprisingly accepting it as otl, Pinochet refuses to step down and starts a white terror campaign to cement his rule and wipe out further opposition. The Catholic Church goes from criticizing the dictatorship to actively opposing it and does everything short of excommunicating the regime.

Say that Pinochet takes a page from Henry VIII and rather than get back in line, he starts a Chilean church that follows his social-Darwinist principles and is loyal to only him. How different could the church get from mainstream Catholicism? Would it resemble the Anglican church in any way? Would he be content merely leading the church or would he go all the way and prop himself up as the messiah to be worshipped like the Kims in North Korea?

I don't believe the Church would take such a strong stand against the regime. Latin American right-wing dictatorships were very close to the Church, and it's unlikely the clergy would give Pinochet so much trouble that he'd take distance from them.
 
You don't think that when the Pope has the audacity to tell the oligarchs to actually act like Christians that the Oligarchs would start a church that practices Christianity as they define as the right way?

Nope, they wouldn't. It's just a lot easier to ignore the Pope and keep going to mass.

Push come to shove, the Pope wasn't going to shove. They knew it. He knew it. The oligarchs had their Bishops, their Archbishops, their Cardinals all telling them what they wanted to hear. They had the Pope mostly looking the other way, and if he said something awkward once in a while, he didn't act on it, didn't put pressure, and they could count on plenty of looking the other way.
 
If Pinochet would try that, he will go down even faster than in OTL and his church is going to remain very small if not even disappear totally.
It worked in England.

I don't believe the Church would take such a strong stand against the regime. Latin American right-wing dictatorships were very close to the Church, and it's unlikely the clergy would give Pinochet so much trouble that he'd take distance from them.
Nope, they wouldn't. It's just a lot easier to ignore the Pope and keep going to mass.

Push come to shove, the Pope wasn't going to shove. They knew it. He knew it. The oligarchs had their Bishops, their Archbishops, their Cardinals all telling them what they wanted to hear. They had the Pope mostly looking the other way, and if he said something awkward once in a while, he didn't act on it, didn't put pressure, and they could count on plenty of looking the other way.
So how do local bishops justify disregarding the Pope's authority when he decides not to look the other way? Just because there's no threat of invasion from Vatican City doesn't mean that having the head of the population's religion constantly condemning you is something that should be left unaddressed.
 
It worked in England.

Five or six hundred years ago?


So how do local bishops justify disregarding the Pope's authority when he decides not to look the other way? Just because there's no threat of invasion from Vatican City doesn't mean that having the head of the population's religion constantly condemning you is something that should be left unaddressed.

Again, because they can count on the Pope looking the other way twenty minutes later. He certainly wasn't constantly harping on Pinochet. There was no systematic or organized campaign by the Pope against Pinochet.

Pino crossed the line, did some outrageous shit, the Pope spoke up. The message wasn't "The Catholic Church wants you gone." It was "The Church would prefer that you tone it down man, you're embarrassing the rest of us."

Trust me, the Catholic Church has turned moral unctiousness while turning a blind eye to histories monsters into an art form.
 
It worked in England.

Well, begun to work after about 150 years when there was Anglican and Catholic monarchs, burning of thousands of people, either Cahtolics or Protestants, depending was monarch follower of pope or not, several revolts and civil war. Oh yeah, there was too ultra-puritanic theocratic dictatorship which even banned Christmas. So I wouldn't say that it worked nicely and smoothly. And Ireland even didn't ever fully converted. It was difficult process even despite that there was much of frustration towards Catholic Church.

So Pinochet would be really lucky if he even manage to create new sect which survives to 2022. Chileans were too staunch Catholic and there was quiet few of support for changing of religion. Such process hasn't ever been easy anywhere. Not even for dictators/absolute monarchs.
 
Trust me, the Catholic Church has turned moral unctiousness while turning a blind eye to histories monsters into an art form.
You got me there.

So Pinochet would be really lucky if he even manage to create new sect which survives to 2022.
His cult is just supposed last until 2006 when he's no longer alive to enforce his faith. Point conceded on the staunch Catholicism though.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty ASB. Pinochet's 'positive' support - ie the people that actually liked him, were from the reactionary oligarchic traditionalist portions of Chilean society. So staunch archconservative Catholics, devoted to tradition and hierarchy. Those are the last people that would support a new church.

And honestly, the guy was a cheap, stupid thug in an expensive uniform. Suppose he would have established his own church - what's the sacraments? Helicopter rides? Having women raped by Dogs? The ceremonial expropriation of the poor to give to the wealthy? Perhaps a 'douse children with gasoline and set them on fire' festival?

The constituencies that would have supported a break away from mainstream Catholicism were all adamantly opposed to Pinochet.

Conceivably, he could have thrown his weight behind some American Neo-Nazi, Prosperity Gospel, Evangelical Protestant sect.

Frankly, he had no intention of stepping down in 1988. He wanted a tijuana donkey show that would give his regime a veneer of legitimacy beyond rule through brutality, torture centers and helicopter trips. He needed that veneer of legitimacy because he had established a long history of incompetent and brutal thuggishness. But because he was an incompetent thug, he painted himself into a corner where he had no choice but to step down.

If a man sets out to build a scaffold for his victims, but while in process, accidentally drives a six inch nail through his penis into a wooden post... well, he deserves laughter, not applaluse for his humanitarian enlightenment.
This is disturbingly specific. Do you mind giving some.... context?
 
This is disturbingly specific. Do you mind giving some.... context?

During Pinochet's tenure he murdered at least 3500 people, and literally arrested and tortured tens or hundreds of thousands. Among specific atrocities:

During his coup, he rounded literally hundreds or thousands of dissidents.

One of them was a poet and muscian. His soldiers deliberately smashed the poets hands, and eventually tortured him to death.

After taking over, he instituted the 'Caravan of Death' this was basically a helicopter convoy of rightist officers who travelled the length of the country, collecting targetted citizens and political prisoners, and executing them.

He maintained a political prison for torturing dissidents, where one of the tactics was to have women raped by dogs. Or shoving rats into women's vaginas.

His men did a lot of heinous torture shit, terrorizing the country relentlessly. A lot of the shit they pulled would turn your hair white.

According to Peter Kornbluh in The Pinochet File, "routine sadism was taken to extremes" in the prison camps. The rape of women was common, including sexual torture such as the insertion of rats into genitals and "unnatural acts involving dogs". Detainees were forcibly immersed in vats of urine and excrement, and were occasionally forced to ingest it.[121][122] Beatings with gun butts, fists and chains were routine; one technique known as "the telephone" involved the torturer slamming "his open hands hard and rhythmically against the ears of the victim", leaving the person deaf. At Villa Grimaldi, prisoners were dragged into the parking lot and had the bones in their legs crushed as they were run over with trucks. Some died from torture; prisoners were beaten with chains and left to die from internal injuries.[121] Following abuse and execution, corpses were interred in secret graves, dropped into rivers or the ocean, or just dumped on urban streets in the night. The body of the renowned Chilean singer, theatre director and academic Víctor Jara was found in a dirty canal "with his hands and face extremely disfigured" and with "forty-four bullet holes".[123]

The practice of murdering political opponents via "death flights", employed by the juntas of Argentina and Chile, has sometimes been the subject of numerous alt-right and other right-wing extremist groups internet memes, with the suggestion that political enemies and leftists be given "free helicopter rides".[124] In 2001, Chilean President Ricardo Lagos informed the nation that during Pinochet's reign, 120 bodies had been tossed from helicopters into "the ocean, the lakes and the rivers of Chile".[125]
(wikipedia)

During anti-pinochet demonstrations in the mid to late 1980's, his soldiers doused children or students with gasoline and set them on fire. One of them died, another survived to endure a brutal walk to seek help, and was eventually granted an audience with the Pope over the objections of the regime. This particular incident and the embarrassment to Pinochet is what the OP is inspired by.

Pinochet also assassinated dissidents outside his own country. In particular, he murdered Orlando Letellier on the streets of Washington DC with a car bomb that also killed an American citizen. (A variation of this incident was depicted in Al Pacino's Scarface, where Pacino's character breaks with the CIA by refusing to carbomb a man because his family is with him - it leads to the fall of Pacino's character.)

Pinochet was also connected with the disappearance/murder of American citizens in Chile, and citizens of other countries.

He was also a member of 'Operation Condor' which was an international conspiracy of Latin America's dictatorships during the 1970's to coordinate political murder, assassination, abduction and torture for each other. Basically, if someone was persona non grata in Paraguay, but living in Chile, Pinochet would grab them, torture or execute them, or send them to Paraguay to be tortured or executed.

The guy was just an ignorant venal thug.

But he was an ignorant venal thug with good press. He was lucky enough to hook up with Friedman and the 'Chicago boys' Chicago school of economics, who made extravagant promises to reform and revitalize the Chilean economy. He gave them a free hand, and they immediately produced a catastrophic boom and bust that ultimately near wrecked the Chilean economy. Friedman then went home and touted the whole thing as a success and an 'economic miracle.' No one double checked his propaganda.

In reality, the overall economic performance was sub-par compared to most of Latin America during Pinochet's tenure. Further, his rule was marked by the expansion of poverty from 15% of the population to 40%, the contraction and virtual destruction of the Chilean middle class, the destruction of the entrepreneurial or small business class, and a massive transfer of wealth to the oligarchy. In the 1960's, Chile was the wealthiest most advanced nation in Latin America, and essentially was a western country in terms of industrialization, education, middle class, and economic and demographic profiles. Pinochet took that and turned it into a third world banana Republic.

Oh but he lined his pockets, and his friends pockets while doing it.

But he had good press, and for various reasons, a lot of elements on the political right liked to celebrate him. Almost all of his positive accomplishments are exaggerations, misrepresentations and outright lies.

Eventually, by the 1980's, his history of mass murder, torture, venal corruption and mismanagement was making him increasingly unpalatable. When the Pope is sitting down with a hideously burned student and patting her hand while she's talking about what a monster Pinochet is... there's issues with optics. He was a liability. Pinochet needed to 'legitimize' his rule.

He intended to do this with a 'referendum' in 1988. He'd actually done the Referendum trick before, in 1980. It's a popular thing with Dictators, Saddam Hussein for instance, did it a lot too.

The problem was that he was an incompetent thug, and literally lost a referendum that he had done everything he could think of to corrupt and manipulate. This was major egg on his face. He actually planned to overthrow his own referendum, and coup against himself. But at this point, the US was tired of him and refused to support and he was facing an uprising at home. He had accidentally completely delegitimized himself.

So he was forced to step down in 1990.... somewhat, but retained control of the Army and Navy, gave himself a lifetime appointment to the Senate, and complete immunity. Basically, he was trying to give himself the de facto and constitutional authority to overthrow the government if he felt like it. Whether he could have succeeded? Probably not. But he held Chilean democracy at gunpoint for the next ten years.

His new 'constitution' also immunized his murderers and torturers as well. And he gave the Chilean military a permanent share of of Chilean copper export royalties, basically giving them a share of control over the countries revenues and making them financially independent of the civilian government.

In 1998 he was arrested in England, on the action of a Spanish Judge for his torture and murder of Spanish citizens. Margaret Thatcher was sweet on him, because he supported her against Argentina. (she also supported Pol Pot in Cambodia) So she let him off the hook. But his evil spell was finally broken.

He lived out the rest of his life, exposed as a pathetic, horrible, vile, ugly (but very rich) old man.
 
Last edited:
Top