When Virtue-Signaling Meets Reality’s Bill

“You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.” – This aphorism by philosopher‑novelist Ayn Rand is often quoted, because it precisely captures the delusion of those who think they can rely on moral posturing to exempt themselves from the logic of reality. People can advocate ideals and criticise reality, but the law of cause and effect does not stop working for their sake. This is perhaps the most direct critique of utopian altruism.

If “public intellectuals” refers to a specific social group, then “Baizuo” is a broader label applied to Western liberals. Baizuo thinking differs from traditional left‑wing thinking: the old left focused mainly on economic issues, whereas Baizuo has shifted toward a socio‑cultural leftism that concentrates on supporting new immigrants, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ groups (sexual minorities), environmentalism and animal rights. Their arguments begin from a sense of moral superiority: they see themselves as above everyone else and regard the traditional right who oppose them as ignorant bumpkins of low intellectual calibre.

I should first confess that when I was young, I also had somewhat left‑leaning tendencies, though they were more of the economic‑left kind. In recent years, a wave of socio‑cultural leftism has emerged in the West, and at the beginning I maintained an open and respectful attitude toward the rights of various minorities, but in recent years the Baizuo trend in the US and the broader West has gone badly off track. Take the United States as an example: originally about 50% of people leaned slightly to the right and 50% leaned slightly to the left, but policies pushed by Baizuo politicians have magnified the rights of the 1% of minorities into legal obligations that everyone must comply with, becoming more and more extreme. For instance, nurseries in the United Kingdom are not allowed to refuse paid storytelling sessions by “cross‑dressing groups”, which elevates minority rights into a realm of legal norms that the general public must obey.

Of course, Baizuo thinking and radical political resistance are twin siblings that often appear together. Two examples – one foreign, one local – are worth discussing.

The Black Snow White

Disney’s live‑action remake of Snow White ended up a disastrous box‑office failure. The classic animated film adaptation, released in March 2025, ultimately racked up production costs of as much as 340 million US dollars, making it one of the most expensive productions in film history, but it only grossed 210 million US dollars worldwide. In the mainland Chinese market, the film took in just 9.24 million yuan at the box office, and its Douban rating sank as low as 4.0. After factoring in other costs, Disney suffered a huge loss of about 170 million US dollars, turning the film into a Waterloo moment for the studio.

The most controversial aspect of the film was the casting of Latina actress Rachel Zegler as Snow White. This was clearly a politically correct choice influenced by Baizuo thinking, yet it clashed sharply with the feel of the original character. Zegler’s flamboyant personal style amplified the public‑relations crisis. During promotion she claimed that the 1937 animated original was outdated, in an attempt to justify casting a non‑white actress as Snow White. She then free‑styled further, describing the prince as a “stalker”, which triggered strong backlash and boycotts among audiences with more traditional views. An actress with a “princess syndrome” only deepened the disaster for this princess movie.

In addition, to avoid reinforcing stereotypes of the dwarf community, Disney used CGI to animate the seven dwarfs instead of hiring actors with dwarfism. Although this was originally meant as a sign of respect, it prompted collective protests from dwarf actors, who argued that this actually deprived them of acting opportunities. This is a classic example of well‑intentioned efforts gone wrong.

Some say Disney is merely ideologically progressive and therefore not at fault. In reality, the production team’s mistake lay in losing touch with reality and misjudging society’s appetite for political correctness, as well as misreading audience reactions. Disney had another option: if it felt that casting a white actress as Snow White posed major problems, it could have chosen simply not to make the film. Disney did have a choice and now must pay the price for making a wrong choice detached from reality.

The fugitive who ruined her father

Fugitive activist Anna Kwok, who is wanted by the National Security Department of the Hong Kong Police Force, asked her father to help her cash in a savings‑type insurance policy, leading to his prosecution under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance for the offence of “attempting to deal with property representing proceeds of an abscondee”. On 11 February, her father was convicted.

After the verdict, Kwok posted online claiming that her father’s conviction was “only because he is my father”. This is pure buck‑passing. Hong Kong has many fugitives, and not a few are linked to national security cases, yet very few of their parents have been arrested and convicted; her father is an exception, not the rule.

Kwok’s father was charged because she had signed a document instructing him to cancel the policy and withdraw the remaining 90,000 dollars. Despite being fully aware that her assets were frozen and unavailable for use, she instructed her father to act on her behalf.  As for the father, his criminal intent was also obvious: the document signed by Kwok was an old version and no longer valid, yet he still signed on her behalf on the new version and on the broker’s tablet computer in order to retrieve the policy balance. The criminal act and intent were clear, and he was consequently found guilty.

The most striking feature of Kwok’s behaviour is her claim that all problems are caused by others while she herself is spotless. The reality is that she has repeatedly made mistakes and continually dragged others down, ultimately pulling her own family into the quagmire.

Broadening the lens, Baizuo thinking has spread across the US and the wider Western world. It began as social concern that many people supported, but gradually mutated into an activist defence of extreme minority rights. The attitude toward these groups shifted from respect, to statutory protection, and finally to treating them as the social mainstream. In truth, parties like the US Democrats, in order to win the votes of what they see as the decisive 1% of extremist groups, have pushed everything to an absurd extreme.

The clearest way Baizuo politicians “cause collateral damage” is by stoking intense resentment among ordinary voters and opening Pandora’s box – ushering in Donald Trump. Even some Democratic supporters could no longer tolerate these extreme Baizuo trends and ended up switching to Trump; one could say they “turned right because the left went too far”, which is deeply ironic.

Let me end with another line from Ayn Rand as a piece of advice to Baizuo types: “Face reality. Whether you evade it or confront it, reality is always there, unchanged.”

Lo Wing‑hung

Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

The United States today is undeniably far less impressive than it was 40 years ago.

Back in 1983, when I was in college, a political science class focused specifically on the US government’s successful decision-making during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Harvard professor Graham Allison, later renowned for his theory of Thucydides Trap - The Rise of Great Powers, published a detailed article analyzing how the US managed to resolve this severe crisis so swiftly.
 
In 1962, at the height of the US-Soviet Cold War, the Soviets planned to deploy ballistic missiles in Cuba, right next to the US, in response to America’s missile deployments in Italy and Turkey. Then-President John F. Kennedy boldly imposed a naval blockade on Cuba, showing extraordinary courage and resolve. His actions ultimately forced the Soviets to withdraw their nuclear missiles. Allison praised the US decision-making in that episode as a model of democracy combined with high efficiency.
 
Those were truly America’s golden years. Kennedy became president at 43, successfully defused the Cuban Missile Crisis, but was assassinated just a year later at the age of 45. The prevailing US view then was that socialist regimes produced only aging leadership and could never match the youthful energy and efficiency of the capitalist system.
 
Time has marched on. The country once led by young leaders is now locked in the hands of elders. President Donald Trump is 79, older than Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev when he died at 75—someone the US once criticized fiercely. Trump’s decision to launch a war against Iran is widely judged by scholars at home and abroad as a costly misstep.
 
Bloomberg reported on April 8 that Trump’s military action against the Iranian regime proved "a serious strategic failure." Rather than weakening rivals, it bolstered China and Russia, eroded America’s advantages, and ultimately positioned Iran as the strategic winner. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remains intact, Iran keeps control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the US "failed to achieve any military objectives."
 
The New York Times published a detailed feature on April 7 titled "How Trump Pulled the US Into a War With Iran." The report uncovers the inner workings of the decision and shows how, amid internal disagreements and repeated warnings, Trump ultimately chose war based largely on intuition. White House reporters Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman tracked this process closely. They highlight a pivotal moment on February 11, when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House and aggressively pitched the plan to attack Iran in the White House Situation Room.
 
During a one-hour briefing, Netanyahu and Mossad chief David Barnea pressed Trump hard. They argued Iran was vulnerable to regime change and that a combined US-Israeli strike could topple the Islamic Republic. Netanyahu outlined what they saw as near-certain conditions for victory, including:
 
1. Destroying Iran’s ballistic missile program within weeks;
 
2. Weakening the Iranian regime enough to prevent it from blockading the Strait of Hormuz;
 
Third, the chance of Iran hitting US interests through neighboring countries was judged extremely low;
 
Fourth, street protests within Iran would flare again, and with Israeli intelligence agencies stirring things up, intense bombing could create an opening for Iranian opposition forces to topple the regime;
 
Fifth, Israel also suggested that Iranian Kurdish armed groups might cross from Iraq into Iran to open a ground front.
 
Trump responded at the time, saying, "Sounds good."
 
The day after the meeting—February 12—a briefing was held in the White House Situation Room with only US officials attending, who divided Netanyahu's proposals into four parts:

First, a decapitation strike—the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei;
 
Second, to weaken Iran's missile projection capabilities and its threats to neighboring countries;
 
Third, to spark large-scale protests among the Iranian people;
 
Fourth, regime change, with a secular leader taking control of Iran.
 
US officials judged that the first two objectives could be achieved through American intelligence and military power. However, the third and fourth goals promoted by Netanyahu—mass protests and regime change—are divorced from reality.
 
CIA Director Ratcliffe called the "fantasy of regime change" absurd and laughable. Secretary of State Rubio bluntly dismissed it as "complete nonsense." The top military leader, Joint Chiefs Chairman Caine, told Trump, "In my experience, this is basically Israel’s usual play—they tend to exaggerate, but their plans aren’t always flawless."
 
However, Trump remained interested in the first two objectives: a decapitation strike and weakening Iran's military strength.
 
In the days that followed, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Caine presented Trump with a stark military assessment. He warned that a large-scale strike against Iran would severely deplete US weapons stockpiles, including interceptor missiles already strained by support for Israel and Ukraine. Caine also highlighted the risks of Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz and the enormous challenges the US would face in securing the Gulf region.
 
Trump dismissed these warnings, convinced the Iranian regime would surrender before such consequences materialized. He was likely influenced by the previous year's US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, expecting this war to be just as brief.
 
Nevertheless, Trump was increasingly resolved to strike Iran. Meanwhile, peace talks between the US and Iran were still underway. The turning point came in late February, when new intelligence from US and Israeli agencies revealed that Iran’s supreme leader Khamenei and other senior officials would soon meet in a ground-level building. This would leave Khamenei fully exposed to an airstrike—an opportunity US and Israeli officials believed was fleeting and unlikely to recur.
 
On February 26, the White House Situation Room convened for a final discussion. Many expressed doubts about going to war, including Vice President Vance, who told Trump, “You know I think this is a bad idea, but if you want to do it, I’ll support you.” Joint Chiefs Chairman Caine withheld clear endorsement and focused on risk warnings. The strongest advocate was Defense Secretary Esper, who argued if the Iran issue is going to be resolved sooner or later, better to do it now. Ultimately, Trump made the strike decision impulsively, relying on his gut instinct.

The New York Times report exposes critical flaws in decision-making at the highest levels of the United States government. Although most advisors believed striking Iran was unwise, no one dared truly oppose Trump’s imperial-style leadership. Trump behaved like a stubborn, glory-seeking elder focused only on immediate gains—much like a retail investor chasing quick profits in the stock market. His choice dragged the US into a deep quagmire it still struggles to escape. Forty years ago, the US criticized socialist countries for flawed decision-making; today, those same issues have surfaced within America itself.

Lo Wing-hung