The idea is to destabilize society by accelerating disruptive societal change.
At the far extremes, this looks like mass shootings or bombings with manifestos attached.
On the right, the theory is that a white ethnostate will surely emerge to bring order if the country is thrown into chaos along racial lines.
On the left, it looks very much the same, except what will surely emerge is an egalitarian utopia once those white fascists are out of the picture.
In practice, a lot of these ideas successfully filter into the mainstream because they're being pushed by propaganda networks that seek to damage western democracy.
Importantly, if the propaganda can convince otherwise well meaning people to subtly ingrain "white male == bad" into the language and attitudes, that benefits accelerationists.
White supremacists want you to say that white people are the problem. It legitimizes radical ideas like "replacement theory".
It's also why things like the Rittenhouse trial are so volatile. If he's acquitted, one side will further radicalize. If he's convicted, the other side will further radicalize.
Even if you honestly believe that white males are the source of all the world's problems, labeling it as a white male problem will produce further radicalized white males.
I'll grumble that the Rittenhouse trial is nothing to do with said accelerationism. Said volatility is solely because of the media trying to flay him to push their views, regardless of the evidence.
What else can you say of a clown parade where the prosecution witnesses all corroborate the defense's position and the prosecution decides to insinuate that silence implies guilt. Or, with the spirit of Jack Chick watching over him.
>“Isn’t it true when you would hang out with Dominic Black you’d play Call of Duty and other first-person shooter video games?” prosecutor Thomas Binger asked Rittenhouse on November 10. “And those are games in which you use weapons like AR-15s to pretty much shoot anybody who comes at you, right?”
