> I don't mean he's a Nazi as a perjorative. I mean, quite litearlly, he's a Nazi.

Again, you say it like you think it makes you argument better. On the contrary, it makes it much worse. While disliking Carlson and calling him a Nazi in a pejorative sense would be somewhat plausible (though massively exaggerated) argument, calling him literally a Nazi (i.e. member of NSDAP or one of the following parties) is plain and obvious lie.

> The Third Reich had cultural Bolshevism

The Reich didn't "have" it - Bolshevism was a real movement, and its adherents have wreaked massive havoc in Russia, killing millions, and in Germany the German Communists - which were ideological twins to Bolsheviks in Russia - were a major competitors of Nazis. That doesn't make either of them good guys, to be sure - they were both horrendously bad, with Nazis succeeding in being more horrendous, but in a meaning of "killing of 20 millions vs just killing 10 millions".
Bolsheviks weren't some Nazi invention. Neither are Marxists - many modern activists openly admit to being Marxists. Some don't use "Marxist" but adjacent terms like "socialist" or "democratic socialist" but once you ask them about their ideological axioms, they are right into Marxist mainstream.

> he basically argues that black people are inherently violent.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. And the give-away word here is "basically". If we dig it up, it'll soon turn out Carlson didn't say anything like that, but you interpreted something he did say - by taking the most hostile interpretation possible and making two or three logic leaps from here - is as saying that, and that's why you needed to add "basically".

> Replace "George Soros" with "the Jew"

That's a cheap trick. You can't do such replacements - it's completely OK and not anti-Semitic to criticize a particular Jew for what he personally does. It's exactly when you replace it with a generic - i.e. make a shift from personal actions to imagined inherent racial/enthnic qualities - where it becomes racist and anti-Semitic. So you essentially saying "if you make anti-Semitic generalization then it'd be anti-Semitic". Of course it'd be - but it's you who did it!
Soros is a particular person, who happens to be Jewish (as are millions of Americans). It is completely legitimate to criticize him - and any other Jew - for what that particular Jew does in his personal capacity. Same, of course, is true of a Black person, Asian person, woman, man, gay person, trans person, blonde person, left-handed person - any person who you criticize for his personal action, it is not bigoted, regardless of which checkboxes that particular person checks in their personal data file.
To argue otherwise would mean to establish separate rules for different identities, and that would be bigoted - instead of defining person by their action, or, as one person said, "by the content of their character", you lump them together will all people who look like that person, or have similar genetics, or similar other inherent unchangeable qualities - completely erasing their personality and their personal agency and responsibility.

> The normalization of Nazi views and fascism is terrifying and real

Saying something "is real" because you imagined it doesn't make it real. You're not God Almighty that can create reality by His word. It's just your words, and they are worth even less when you use them carelessly.

> It's this same propaganda that has convinced people that there even is an extreme left in US politics.

"Extreme left" is an emotional and subjective term. Of course for some people some leftist positions appear extreme, just as for some other people some right positions appear extreme. That's just their opinion. Pretending like there's some objective measure that defines "extreme" and you used this measure and concluded there's no "extreme left" is, again, pretending your personal opinions are facts. But they aren't.