/u/Galen , literally: this is my example.

They absolutely compare individual children and people. CRT unequivocally asserts that a white homeless man living on the street is more privileged than Barack Obama due to the assertion that the Liberal Political order creates a political structure of race, which it then uses to suppress the oppressed population for political submission, control, and economic exploitation through capitalism. This is best expounded upon in Falguni Sheth's "Toward a Political Philosophy of Race".

Critical Race Theory uses the Marxist historical dialectic of Oppressor and Oppressed to explicitly prevent whites from being able to functionally deny racism. It asserts that the Liberal systems construction of race is foundation to every aspect of a Liberal society, and as such there is no reason to question if racism asserts itself, but to identify how racism has asserted itself in every form.

As a Marxist dialectic, it still operates off of the assumption that the political races have Objective Value in a society, and that the Surplus Value of a political race within a society is Privilege (a racial bourgeoisie), and the Undervaluing of a political race is Oppression (a racial proletariat).

No individual member of a political race can exist outside of their racial ordering within a liberal society according to the Marxist dialectic and CRT. Each individual is an extension of their racial ordering within the Liberal society, and as such any individual differences between members of a different race can still be asserted as differences between races within the Liberal order.

As such, a homeless white man is always more privileged then Barack Obama because he exists as an extensions of his white political bourgeoisie. His individual choices that may have lead him to that position of being homeless are irrelevant because we assert that in a Liberal society the individuals of a white political community will still have each and every aspect of the Liberal society built to support all choices of all whites. Where as the reverse is true for the black political proletariat.

What is particularly important is to recognize how dehumanizing this attitude is towards the individuals because it promotes contempt for the worst among the racial-bourgeoisie, sympathy among worst individuals of the racial-proletariat, and idol worship among the successful racial-proletariat. It is not only that each and every single individual of the racial-bourgeois is individually privileged as an extension of their collective, it is that the direct comparison of individuals within this perspective lead you to believe that the worst among the racial-bourgeoisie are deserving of their extermination.

See, the individual racial-bourgeois must be an inherently inferior individual because he is both homeless and white. A black woman (a racial proletariat) would have long since died for making similar mistakes. Society uplifts the homeless white man so much that it compensates for his innate failure. The middle-class black woman, however, is effectively individually superior to the wealthiest and most powerful white men in the world because she has survived and conquered much more than any individual white man will ever face due to the Liberal order's protection of his social status.

This perspective is what leads to people easily concluding that Black Supremacism is inherently natural, as the innate superiority of black people is the only reason they are able to overcome the Liberal order's oppression of them, and it is the explanation for how the Liberal order has become so wealthy from exploiting them.

This explanation is not something you are going to learn from listening to Breadtube explicitly lie to you. The same way Athiesm+ people lied when they said "Feminism is just thinking women are people". This intentional reductionism is a form of compartmentalization and information hiding from Useful Idiots that can re-enforce the propaganda. People like this person are played for fools by their masters. The only point where he will accept my explanation is when he has become so fully indoctrinated that he sees it as a good thing. Until he's been indoctrinated to the higher tier, he will simply be lied to, and told to repeat buzzwords.

As with Feminism, we know it is not just "believing women have rights", that is why there is an entire academic field dedicated to expounding on Feminist doctrines. Similarly, Communism isn't just "sharing", National Socialism isn't just "tradition", Post-modernism isn't just "questioning the familiar", and Critical Theory isn't just "thinking critically". These are actually quite convoluted ideologies and philosophies that actually require a significant amount of mental effort, but the activists don't want to push that onto their foot-soldiers. The Useful Idiots and foot-soldiers only exist to die happy for the cause, and so they need not be trouble with the nuance that he is accusing you of ignoring.

So yeah, how do you get to the Useful Idiots? Well, most normal people are easy to get to because they already know they are kind of ignorant, you just have to walk them through the logic of what they are saying and thinking because most of what the Left does is emotional and psychological conditioning.

The activists on the other hand, we have to kick in the teeth with truth. They know that they are lying, so we shove it in their face until we feel something break.