For years I have been commenting here on the bias of many media outlets when classifying different political options.<\/p>\n
It is common practice in many media outlets to use the term \"extreme right\" to describe conservative parties, but never to use the expression \"extreme left,\"<\/strong> unless it is necessary to describe extremely violent and practically marginalized groups. We would thus be faced with a paradox: one that tries to convince us that there is a far-right but not a far-left<\/strong>, at least within the political spectrum. Obviously, in leftist media, this bias is evident: for them, a leftist is an angelic being who never deserves to be labeled an extremist<\/strong>, even if they are violent, intolerant, and support authoritarian regimes.<\/p>\n Beyond that media bias, what are the extreme left and the extreme right, really?<\/strong> Because clearly, there are extremist positions on both sides of the political spectrum. Of course, the left-right divide itself is a political convention, so there would be answers to that question to suit all tastes. In any case, an extremist is someone who takes their ideology to extreme positions, assuming the idea that the ends justify the means<\/strong>. Means that could include violence or the defense of authoritarian regimes.<\/p>\n In this sense, a person is not an extremist for questioning the ideological consensus of others on highly debatable issues<\/strong>. I think it's necessary to point this out because too often words like \"far-right\" or \"ultra\" are used to disqualify those who simply don't share progressive ideological positions<\/strong>, positions often held by centrist parties. For example, opposing abortion is not a form of extremism: it's an absolutely legitimate position<\/strong>. In fact, it's much more legitimate and reasonable to defend life than to defend the act of killing unborn babies. Those who should be labeled extremists are those who defend that atrocity, not those who reject it.<\/strong><\/p>\n In any case, justifying violence for political ends is an unequivocal sign of extremism<\/strong>, and it matters little what ideological pretext anyone uses to defend attacks on those who hold different opinions. In Spain, we've had leftist ministers justifying attacks on right-wing rivals<\/a>, but curiously, for many media outlets, the extremists are the victims<\/strong>, not the aggressors or those who justify these attacks. It's absurd. Believing you have the right to attack others for disagreeing with you always makes you an extremist.<\/strong> It doesn't matter what excuses you come up with. \"Antifascism\" is one of the most common tactics, and it consists of falsely labeling the victim of any aggression as \"fascist\" to justify that violence. It is very common on the left.<\/p>\n Another way to recognize an extremist is their support for dictatorships.<\/strong> Believing that your ideas are better than others' is perfectly legitimate. Believing that those ideas should be imposed by an authoritarian regime is the mark of a fanatic. Last year I reviewed the Spanish political parties with parliamentary representation that support dictatorships:<\/strong> there are six, and all six are left-wing.<\/a> Interestingly, very few media outlets label them as \"far left,\" while many label democratic parties that do not support dictatorships and do not justify violence as \"far right.\"<\/p>\n Another common distinguishing feature of extremism is the demonization of people for certain characteristics<\/strong> that do not imply guilt: nationality, religion, race, social class, sex, sexual orientation... The left always sees racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, sexism, and homophobia on the right<\/strong>, often simply for taking critical positions on illegal immigration, criticizing the dogmas of Islam, or contradicting gender ideology\u2014positions that are entirely legitimate.<\/p>\n On the contrary, the criminalization of millions of people for being Christian or for their social class has historically been very common on the left<\/strong>, a stigmatization that has frequently served to justify massacres. Hate speech against Jews, men, and people from certain countries<\/strong>, such as Israel or the United States, is very common on the left today. In fact, it is easier to find anti-Semites on the left than on the right, and hatred of people because of their nationality has led to acts of xenophobia, such as the one that occurred in Vigo in 2025 against Israeli tourists<\/a>, with the applause of many leftists. Nor should we forget the waves of leftist insults against the elderly<\/a> in certain Spanish regions, when the election result in those places was not to the liking of the left.<\/p>\n Thus, the extreme right exists, and so does the extreme left.<\/strong> In fact, the latter feels more justified in promoting violence, intolerance, authoritarianism, and hatred of others because for many years it has arrogated to itself the right to tell the rest of us what we should think, under the threat of being labeled \"fascists\"<\/strong> if we disagree \u2014a label that is often the prelude to a beating of the accused. This has happened far too often for some to continue refusing to condemn this method of demonizing dissent, which is unbecoming of a democracy<\/strong>, since it denies one of its pillars: political and ideological pluralism.<\/p>\n Any warning against hatred and extremism suggesting that it only exists on the right<\/strong>, as has been happening in the speeches of socialists and communists in Spain, is usually nothing more than an attempt to disguise the hatred and extremism of a considerable part of the left<\/strong>, a trap that often involves assuming that if violence, hatred, and intolerance exist on the left, it is because its victims deserve it, a position that, under the pretext of combating extremism, is promoting an equally nefarious or even worse extremism<\/strong>, since it often falsely identifies its victims as extremists to justify hatred, intolerance, and violence against them.<\/p>\n ---<\/p>\n
\n