I guess this gets down to debating what a reasonable inference would be. I'm saying that a reasonable inference would be that the journalist ties anti-theocracy to the far right.See how these sentences are contradicting?
You say you can't share timestamps to statements in the video because you claim the "lack" of someting.
And in the next sentence you say that you claim his islamophobia is the reason given for him being far right.
I say this is not so. I say neither of these things are ever stated in that video as one being the result from another.
The video is 2 parts. First it introduces Wilders. It lists a few facts about the person and the party. When it was founded, how performed historically, where it falls on the political spectrum (=> far right), the fact that he has radical viewpoints followed by a few examples (he wants less moroccans in a city and he is islamophobic)...
Then in the second part they proceed explaining a theory of how he managed to gain these additional votes and grow so much in the last election.
At no point in the video is it said or otherwise implied that his islamophobia is the reason, let alone the 'only' reason, he is categorized far right.
If you disagree, please point me to the timestamp where this is said or implied.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we should not be thinking about inferences, only what was said explicitly?