Javier Milei’s government represents a break from Argentina’s democratic political culture since 1983. It is not the presence of populism in our democracy that makes the populist Milei different from previous governments. His messianism is no different from those he criticizes. The “crypto” scandal brings him closer to the politicians who preceded him in profiting for themselves and their allies while contributing to the impoverishment of others. Even his use and manipulation of historical memory align him with both Macrist center-right politics and Kirchnerist Peronism. But what truly sets him apart is his denial of the past, particularly of state terrorism.
For the second consecutive year, Javier Milei’s government decided to promote a video on the official Casa Rosada account, providing an “alternative” interpretation of Argentina in the 1970s—mainly of the military dictatorship and its historical role. The video is led by, and likely scripted by, the organic intellectual Agustín Laje, co-author of a book notorious for its lack of substance and academic ignorance, titled “The Black Book of the New Left”.
Mr. Laje is the main ideologue of Argentina’s far right, akin to Dr. Goebbels (the Nazi ideologue) or Steve Bannon (the strategist of Trumpism) for Milei. Unlike the German, who held a doctorate, Laje does not yet have a postgraduate degree. This does not make him any less emblematic of the intellectual poverty of modern populisms. Bannon is also not an academic and says almost the same things. The same was true of Jair Bolsonaro’s “philosopher,” Olavo de Carvalho.
In essence, one does not need to study in order to repeat dictatorship propaganda. However, the goal is to present it in a way that simulates seriousness, objectivity, and academic rigor. Nothing could be further from reality. For example, no history department in the United States or Latin America would include this digital propaganda document in its courses as a valid historical interpretation. Indoctrination and history do not mix.
Published on March 24, the video is not only a provocation but also a symptom of the authoritarian syndrome of Milei’s government. That is, it represents what philosopher Walter Benjamin called a “document of barbarism.” Its function is aesthetic. Its purpose is not to repeat history but to deny it. In concrete terms, it does not debate history; rather, it asserts the crudest myths and propaganda, using the prestige of the Casa Rosada (already considerably diminished).
The digital document claims to offer a “complete history” of the violence of the 1970s. It states that it will not resurrect the so-called “theory of the two demons,” which falsely equates the violence of the dictatorship with that of the guerrillas. However, Laje repeats the arguments of the dictators and the ideology of fascism in Argentina: that the military junta, in the name of the West, saved Argentine society from guerrillas and the left, who supposedly sought to impose a communist dictatorship through armed struggle.
Laje attempts to validate the document by citing books and documents, which the camera generously showcases. However, he does not include in his library any historians who are experts on the subject. This omission is significant, as it represents an act of anti-intellectualism that reduces the study of history to mere propaganda. The music (ominous and complicit), the setting (the official Cabinet table of Milei), and the figure who presents himself as an academic all contribute to a sensation that aims to shape the perception of history itself.
Laje’s narrative, which is the official stance of the government, frames the “horror of the 70s” as an exclusive byproduct of the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It presents the Latin American guerrilla insurgency as a homogeneous phenomenon operating under Moscow’s orders through Cuba. According to this view, the internal conflicts of all Latin American countries were merely proxy wars between superpowers, where the guerrillas were Soviet puppets and the military juntas were the last defenders of the Western way of life. If history were this simple, historians would not be necessary—conspiratorial explanations like these would suffice to blame external forces for the country’s internal problems.
In reality, the so-called “dirty wars” in Latin America were not real wars but illegal militarizations of state repression. States waged “war” against their own citizens. Specifically, Operation Condor was a clandestine transnational operation aimed at eliminating Latin American dissidents through forced disappearances and torture of opponents of the military juntas.
Historians refer to this as state terrorism, whereas Milei, Bolsonaro, Kast, and their followers construct alternative realities that they call the “complete truth.” As in the rest of Latin America, state violence was unjustified and did not save the country from a communist dictatorship. Democracy is strengthened through history, not through its denial.
*Machine translation proofread by Janaína da Silva.
Lawyer. Postdoc at New School For Social Research (N. York). Specialized in international criminal law, constitutional law and human rights. Master in international studies and sociology.
