Absent, but I'm happy to provide it. That's really the key: you can put flags here and there to alert people to what to ask about; or you can use the flags to declare your allegiance and block questions.

Critical Race Theory (legal version) is a critical project, but not with totalitarian prescriptions. If the name were not enough, tracing the intellectual lineage through critical legal studies back to critical theory ought to establish the first part--if you'd like me to bring up parallel quotes from Horkheimer and Delgado & Stefancic to further underscore the point, I can do that once I get back in the vicinity of my books. The non-totalitarian nature can be established by observing firstly the diversity of opinion on CRT itself from people who identify with it (the not entirely convergent definitions in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Definitions should suffice to make the point, but I can pull out some quotes where CRT scholars explicitly say as much), and secondly the dour proclamations of, say, Bell, who argues that racism will always be with us and the only way to make substantive progress is to align with majority interest (again, I'm away from books, but I can dig out a quote if you want). It is illiberal, though--one of the main thrusts of critical theory is to question liberal ideals, and CRT stays true enough to its roots there. (Not all kinds of illiberality are totalitarian, however.)

The 1619 project is very loosely speaking a critical project, but really is more a work of point-of-view journalism, and as such can't really be said to be totalitarian at all--it's advocating for a perspective, not actions. (You could use the perspective to support actions, but that's not really part of the project.) That it is a critical project is supported by its subtitle, "A New Origin Story", but undermined by it basically telling history as already understood, that was mostly fact-checked, and though a few controversial reinterpretations slipped through, those were caught, criticized, shot down, and didn't make it into the book in the original form (see https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248 for the most notable example of such a correction along with checking in a classic, not critical, way). It assuredly is not a comprehensive account of history, nor is it billed as such: hence, point-of-vew journalism is an appropriate descriptor. Since there is no movement associated with it, and it does not itself recommend totalitarian ideas, it cannot be said to be totalitarian. It does criticize how history is taught in school, especially around slavery and the black experience. The 1619 project coheres reasonably well with CRT in that CRT calls for all sorts of historical and systemic impediments to racial justice to be examined, and the 1619 project definitely does that.

Black Lives Matter is "a decentralized political and social movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and inequality experienced by black people" according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter). It is this loose structure that prevents it from being even capable of being either a critical project (except in the most banal sense that it is critical of police shootings of black people) or totalitarian (there is no way to exert power, and the power that has been exerted is more of the anarchist absent-authority type than the totalitarian stringent-authority type). The origin was grass-roots and leaderless (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-black-lives-matter-movement-changed-america-one-year-later/) and the most prominent organization that claimed the name doesn't really have control over it in any functional sense. That millions of white Americans were so outraged by George Floyd's murder by police that they marched and demonstrated all over the country is a tremendous repudiation of the CRT idea that the country is governed by white interest: that was not in the interest of white people at all, except by the most convoluted reasoning. People want a justice system that is just, and that is all. However, the outrage about systemic police violence against black Americans is exactly the sort of thing that CRT is sensitive to, so it's vaguely related. The Black Lives Matter Global Network, which likes to style itself as "Black Lives Matter", does have founders who at one point expressed an affinity for Marxism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter_Global_Network_Foundation#Founder_statements), but Marxism isn't critical theory (though critical theory does share some of the same intellectual lineage). To the extent that they are actually Marxists (questionable), they are totalitarian, as every attempt at implementing Marxist ideals thus far, anyway, has required strong government control to try to shape society along Marxist ideals.

So, there we go--the three things are not the same, and even if a lot of individual people express an affinity for all three, their strengths and deficits are necessarily different by virtue of being very different kinds of things (let alone not being of one perspective). It rarely makes sense to argue against all three at the same time. Among the very few cases where it would make sense is if one is actually just a Republican (all of these are on the "other side" and so should be attacked--they're the other tribe), or if one is a white or possibly Asian racist (again, because they're all "the other side"). For instance, a classical liberal would likely reject CRT for its attacks on liberal ideals while accepting as important some of the phenomena it has uncovered; would accept most of the 1619 project as a valuable perspective while rejecting it as an origin story due to incomplete perspective; and would basically accept the BLM position that Black Lives Matter (and we should say that specifically because it is black lives that seem at greatest risk of being treated as if they don't matter) while ignoring the BLMGN founders as misguided. A classical conservative would reject CRT as transformational, would accept the 1619 project as a possible way to learn history while rejecting the origin story as an attack on America, and would take a middling view of BLM: that policing be fair, just, and impartial they would strongly agree with, but they would also want more of it not less as many BLM activists have called for.

Finally, I reject that "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" is a totalitarian prescription. The key feature of totalitarianism is strong state control. (Evidence: see a dictionary.)