Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

When Virtue-Signaling Meets Reality’s Bill

Blog

When Virtue-Signaling Meets Reality’s Bill
Blog

Blog

When Virtue-Signaling Meets Reality’s Bill

2026-02-15 10:32 Last Updated At:10:34

“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. **

As the saying goes: walk by the river long enough, and your shoes will get wet. For Jimmy Lai, the shoes got soaked—and then he fell in.

When Western media still call Jimmy Lai a "media guy," it borders on absurd. From every encounter with the man, one thing is clear: he's no media visionary. He's a tacky tycoon with a gambler's instinct, staking everything on one bet after another—until the house finally won.

All-In Every Time

Jimmy Lai smuggled himself into Hong Kong and clawed his way up from nothing. His personality? Pure gambling instinct. He treated business like a casino floor, shoving every chip to the center of the table—win big or go bust. And for a while, luck smiled at him. From Comitex Knitters to Giordano fashion, his bets paid off. In 1990, he cashed out his Giordano shares and plunged into the media world, launching Next Magazine.

Calling it "all-in" is no exaggeration. When Next Magazine launched, his editorial team ballooned to 200 people. For a weekly. Most daily newspapers ran leaner operations—Hong Kong Economic Journal had 20-plus staff, Ming Pao just over 50, and even mass-market dailies topped out at 100 to 200. Lai went nuclear, poaching talent with 30 to 50 percent salary bumps, determined to crush the competition through sheer force.

The first year or two, book sales soared but advertising lagged. At one point, Lai couldn't even cover the printing bills. He borrowed everywhere just to survive. But once Next Magazine found its footing, he doubled down. In 1995 came his second big gamble: Apple Daily. He torched cash, slashing the newspaper price from HK$5 to HK$2, ripping open market share.

Victory Depends on the Opponent

When Apple Daily gained traction, Lai wanted more. In 1999, he launched "Apple Promotions," storming into the online shopping market. According to Lai's senior finance executives, he asked about first-month losses and complained they were too small. He thought losing less than HK$50 million a month lacked impact, so management cranked up the burn rate. Later, as losses mounted, Lai stopped asking. When "Apple Promotions" hemorrhaged over HK$1 billion after a year, he finally threw in the towel.

A pattern emerges: Lai only knows one strategy—the big-spending blitz. But victory or defeat hinges entirely on the opponent. If the other side has weaker finances or won't match his high-stakes gambling, he grabs territory. But "Apple Promotions" ran into PARKnSHOP, owned by Li Ka-shing's empire. That was a different ballgame altogether.

Li Ka-shing himself set up his war room right in his own office, constantly tracking price comparisons between PARKnSHOP and "Apple Promotions" for every product. When Lai's "Apple Promotions" sold coke at HK$2 per can, PARKnSHOP sold it for HK$1—they would fight until Lai died. When the opponent is strong enough and willing to brawl, Lai is no magic.

Betting Against Beijing

Later, as Lai's media business ballooned, he started meddling in Hong Kong politics—another massive gamble. But this time, his opponent was the Chinese Communist Party. When he went "all in" against Beijing, the outcome was sealed from the start.

When people still call Jimmy Lai a "media guy" or a "pro-democracy figure," it's pure self-deception. The truth is, he's just a businessman. On the eve of the 1997 handover, I once had tea with Apple's political editor. We discussed the philosophy behind Jimmy Lai's newspaper. That editor directly quoted what Jimmy Lai told her: To run a newspaper, you need people to read it and buy it. After the handover, there will be fewer anti-communist media in Hong Kong, creating market space. So we need to make an anti-communist newspaper—that will definitely make big money.

She also quoted Lai's golden line: If one day Hong Kong people embrace the Communist Party, his newspaper can immediately become pro-communist. That editor lamented at the time that her boss was so ruthlessly pragmatic—everything driven by profit, nothing else.

Buying Influence, Losing Everything

After profit comes the hunger for fame—to have both money and status. Once Lai's media operations succeeded, his ambitions swelled. He wanted to play politics and control everything. It's the classic trajectory of a tacky rich man. Lai's essence is no different from Trump's—everything must be his call. So he set out to become a pan-democratic boss, orchestrating Hong Kong's affairs.

He identified the most influential figures in the pan-democratic camp and cozied up to them: Martin Lee, Cardinal Joseph Zen, Anson Chan, former second-in-command in the Government. Martin Lee had his own wealth, but Lai provided money to Joseph Zen and Anson Chan—and they accepted. According to leaked emails in 2014, Joseph Zen received loads of money from Jimmy Lai. Later, when Zen was interviewed, he admitted receiving a cumulative HK$20 million from Jimmy Lai, which was used up quite quickly, mainly to help him do what he wanted as bishop. Pan-democrats later spread word that Zen used the money to help underground churches in the Chinese Mainland. But, such a large sum, without supervision or control, no one knew where it went.

The leaked emails revealed a long list of pan-democratic political elites who received payments. You can only say those people took money and worked for it—an equal exchange. They can't complain when something happens.

The River Swallowed Him Whole

In Jimmy Lai's eyes, spending some money to become a pan-democratic boss was a bargain. Not only could he satisfy his vanity, but he could also disrupt Hong Kong's situation and serve his Western masters behind the scenes.

Looking back at Jimmy Lai's life now, we see no ideals and no morals—only power and profit. He walked by the river for most of his life. His shoes got wet, and eventually, he fell into the water himself. If, after watching Jimmy Lai's entire trial and seeing the truth of his collusion with foreign forces, people still choose to support him, these people are truly beyond foolish.

Lo Wing-hung

Recommended Articles