If thinking the Pinochet regime ultimately was much better than the alternative is alt-right, then absolutely. It isn't though, that's just "regular" right. Or at least not being a commie pinko faggot. The real irony is how many Chileans loathe the fuck out of Pinochet to this day, completely oblivious to the gigantic bullet they dodged and how responsable the military coup is for their current prosperity. It's easy to look back on Allende with rose-coloured glasses when he is mostly remembered for an admiteddly badass and dramatic last stand, and not the insane economic, social and geopolitical policies he never got a chance to implement.
Sometimes military coups are good things, as counterintuitive as that sounds. A good contemporary example is Turkey's government, that was "western" only as long as the military made it so. As soon as Erdogan and his party purged the military of any potential threats and replaced them with islamic cronies, you get the current Sultanate.
Another good example is the Shah of Iran. People have no idea how backwards, corrupt and terrible Iran was up to the early 1900s. It was Afghanistan-levels of terrible. They had been lead for centuries by a succession of terrible rulers who were selling out the country in order to amass riches and live incredible lives while the populace stayed in squalor and hated the shit out of them.
Idiot westerners will often say shit like 'The Shah was installed as a result of a coup against the democratically elected government because they wanted to nationalize the oil!', which is complete bullshit. First of all, the Shah succeeded his father in 1941 and was always the head of the Persian government. Mossadegh, who was not a man of the people but an incredible rich scion of one of the most important Persian families with a huge hate hard-on for the UK,
is the one who tried to take over the country.
The whole reason why he was removed is because once he issued a decree that dissolved Parliament and gave himself most of the powers of the State, along with a handful of Cabinet members, and removed all of the powers of the Shah. Iran had been working under a three-prong system until then and he wanted not only to renege on foreign deals, but become a dictator himself and align himself with Russia. That's why he was taken over.
He really was not a bad ruler, and even the demonstrations against him at first were mostly by communists (supported by the Soviets) and Islamists (supported by shitty beliefs) while the population at large was supportive of him. You keep hearing around the so-called terrible torture chambers, massacres and prisons of the Shah but in the end, after the propaganda cleared turns out that the SAVAK had killed about 400 guerilla fighters/terrorists and executed about a 100 more political prisoners for plots against the State. You probably had a few thousands who ended up in prisons and were tortured.
That's not to say that extrajudicial killings are good, but to pretend that the overthrow of the Shah was a good thing, especially considering who replaced him, is laughable. The Shah had also modernized Iran, liberalized it, women were free, we had good relations with them, etc...
It's no wonder that most young Iranians are like
'Can we go back to that time plz? The Shah did nothing wrong' 
