It's errant to call Hitler a "Critical Race Theorist."

Was Hitler a "Critical Race Theorist"?

Not really. "Critical Race Theory" is decidedly anti-White/Western and called "critical" by use of the Leftist "Critical Theory" method of propagation--constant, unrelenting, and often absurd criticism of the target.

Without getting into political-science semantics (though I'm willing), Nazism was exactly the opposite.

CHALLENGER'S QUESTION: "At the point of the spear, how does it differ from Hitler and the Jews?"

The most pointed answer to your question is that CRT would--and I hate to say it like this in that context--have it the other way around. The supposedly "oppressed" group would be pushing against the supposed "oppressors." Critical Theory has built into it its beneficiaries being oppressed by its targets. Nazi efforts to portray Aryan peoples as oppressed by that group (the Jews) failed even then. The Germans were arguably "oppressed" by Versailles, but that was at the hands of their fellow Aryan/Nordic peoples (regardless of the specific persons who negotiated for the Germans).

A key point: Critical Theory of any specific issue target carries with it a demand for transfer of wealth and power. It's that demand for Robin Hoodian taking from one side to give to the other (less fortunate in whatever sense) side that makes Critical Theory almost inapplicable by the Right. An ideological policy of compulsory taking from the poor and giving to the rich" has little rational basis beyond pure unprincipled empire-building. (Hey...! 😁)

Both the WW2-era Nazi regime in Germany and present-day BLM were/are evil and criminal, and both deserve{d) the same takedown. That does not change how the fact that they point in opposite directions and to opposite conclusions.

NOW FOR THE FULLER ANSWER:

IN THIS, I USE THE DEFINITIONS OF "LEFT" AND "RIGHT" STANDARD IN THE POLITICAL FIELD. TO DO OTHERWISE, AS IS THE MANNER OF SOME, IS WRONG.

Contrary to what Bubba down at the Tea Party meetin' might say, Nazis were a Rightwing movement--meaning they upheld more traditional orders, like nationalism. In racial issues, that means they upheld the historically, and more importantly, CURRENTLY still-leading races: Whites/Occidentals/Westerners, and in extension, lighter-skinned North Asians--i.e., Japanese.

Actual "Critical Race Theory" gets its name as the application of the more generic Leftist Marxist "Critical Theory" to race. It's more than a tactic. It goes to the application of Marxist principles of "equal distribution" into non-economic areas (like race relations)--that is, the relative empowering of what the Left likes to call "traditionally oppressed" demographics at the direct expense of the--I'll say--"traditionally leading" ones.

[The Paris Climate Accords are all about this--weakening advanced (that means White and Asiatic) economies to give shithole economies (Africa) the means to catch up and ultimately overtake us.]

I do get how you can draw a parallel between Nazi propaganda against Jews and Leftist/Black propaganda against Whites (and of late, North Asiatics). Yet that focuses on them entirely as tactics. "Critical Theory" carries a substance with it that ultimately can't be applied by the Right against the Left. The Right can lie and criticize and do so much, but it's harder to say to the public with a straight face, "Our group has been in charge for centuries, and thus we need to keep it that way," than it is to say, "That dominant 'oppressive' group has been in charge for centuries, and everything about that group is bad and oppresses other peoples and should be suppressed." The former argues for keeping inequities, while the latter calls for eliminating them.

We all know the traditional order has problems. Critical Theory uses those problems as the basis for its agenda. Our group's problems justify replacing us (regardless of an objective comparison to the other group).

Actually, a better parallel would be for the Right to say, "Our group has been in charge for centuries, and (so) everything about other groups is bad and should be suppressed." (That's something of the Nazi line.) It would use something of a Critical Theory TACTIC, but is immediately labeled "racist" and such by even its intended beneficiaries, regardless of any validity it might hold. It goes to an Affirmative Action-type mentality of giving "special rights" to less fortunate: The underdog (supposedly "traditionally oppressed") group can attack the leading group (look at how the term "racism" has been turned to apply ONLY to Whites, and why), but not the other way around.

So even tactically there is not an equality in terms of Critical Theory in our increasingly liberal Western world.

It's that demand for Robin Hoodian taking from one side to give to the other (less fortunate in whatever sense) side that makes Critical Theory almost inapplicable by the Right. A policy of compulsary taking from the poor and giving to the rich" has little rational basis beyond pure unprincipled empire-building.

My concern is the false equivalencies that too many liberals would use that to push, and that too many conservatives would accept out of White Guilt. I see too many such comparisons being taken too literally and seriously by grassroots on the conservative/Right. For example, Jonah Goldberg's book title, "Liberal Fascism": Though intended to be ironic, with the book discussing the Left using tactics generally associated with the fascist far Right (Fascists), many who should know better took it as literal. Hence you will hear loudmouth pundits ignoring the nationalist definition of actual FASCISM and saying, "Right=Liberty; Left=Tyranny." Their shallow analysis creates errant understandings among the grassroots, making them look like hicks in the eyes of most people.

Both Nazism and BLM are evil and criminal, and both deserve the same takedown. That does not change how the fact that they point in opposite directions and to opposite conclusions.