Poor Bret Stephens.

He is not as smart as the people who pay him think he is.  That's his schtick -- writing dumb things then crying "anti semitism" when you call him on them. ("I am NOT a bedbug!)

But so long as people keep on paying to hear and read him and have their own biases reinforced, then like with Ezra Klein, he's got a future in the journolism business.  But the rest of us don't have to subsidize his dumbery, or play along that we are putting his children at risk when we call him out for not being as genetically superior to other races and religions as he thinks.

Praying for ya, Bret!  (Can you afford a career time-out maybe, to rethink your priorities and address the media criticism before it blows up in your employers' face? Could the Times stage an intervention with other working-class journalists, allegedly genetically "lessers", to help Mr. Stephens overcome his Jewish superiority discrimination viewpoints that have made his career to this point, but in this demographic age, will surely end it prematurely? It's dangerous to trade short-term gains for long-term security.  Doesn't he know his history?)

Stephens' most recent Jewish column -- at Christmastime -- can be seen as a cry for help.  So help him already:  re-educate him to why the source material he cites matters, and how he needs to employ critical thinking, even as he positions himself a victim.  Eugenic theory can only be overcome with education, and with all his credentials, Stephens is woefully sheltered.

It's like he went to the University of Chicago to learn, but never set foot off campus and opened his eyes.  That's a criticism of Jewish scholarship in general -- so laser-focused on details often, that the big picture realities are missed.  Stacking the columnist deck with white Jewish men for so long at the Times has come back to haunt them, I think.

That's a danger of legacy leadership too.
Hiring a young person because their parent who was a somebody in the shop once worked there too,, and paid to credential the child in the same way.  And thinking that such working skills are genetically inheritable, instead of systematically sheltering...

It we want the best people to lead, we have to break the entitlement chains that lift so many lesser-qualifieds over other better-prepared-in-reality candidates. # It's Time.

(If the Trump years have not taught us that, the learning curve in the years ahead will be even rougher for softer men like Bret Stephens and his sons, and those who have inherited the leadership mantle at the former national newspaper of repute, but are clueless as to where they want to help lead the country.  Thankfully, the country has tuned out such leadership, and listens less and less to genetic explanations for success or failure, and more on the character of content.  That's why the Bushes and Clintons have been driven from Washington, Mr. Stephens, and the neo-cons/Never Trumpers/war-mongers-who-needed-bailouts are in exile and would be wise to remain there for decades to come...)

 ADDED:
In the demographics-diversity battle that the Times has been courting for years, it will be fun to watch a showdown between Kara "I'm a Man, Baby!" Squisher -- she's known as a loud, lesbian journalist known for calling for censorship and making demands of tech companies, and paying to create multiple families (just like a man, baby!)  -- versus the Jewish intellectual Stephens, who chafes when you call him names other than Jew-genius.

Will Squisher crush the bedbug?
Will Stephens silence Squisher's call to shut down honest discussion in the American marketplace of ideas?  We really shouldn't call this journalism, more like "entertainment newspapering".  And that is what pay-to-play diversity brings us... false conversations, baited columns, cries of who's a bigger victim, while our history of American civics and society is flushed down the toilet in the battle-aftermaths of these diverse minorities who are out of touch with our country.

Is this what the NYT is paying for, honestly?  Controversy that brings clicks?  Sad.