Radical immanents, like all immanents, seek only one thing: the creation of an ideal world. Radical immanents in particular want their ideal, carried to its logical conclusion; they especially want the ideal diametrically opposite theirs eradicated. Radical immanents create their ideal by relying on a definite paradigm: a contusion of belief and technology. This puts them in a very difficult situation, because they need to rely on their alter egos to process the interoperation of the two.
Although radicalism differs between carriers of the trait depending on the function pairing one is immanent in, the radical as a rule conflates their technique with their belief, and refuses to believe anything different: X point of view means the use of X technology; X technology means the truth of point of view X alone. (and the complements to either in accordance with the psychic dyads). Because the radical lives in a state of exhaltation of their own alter egos, they encourage others to do the same in their own persons. This leads on the one hand to the production of more paradigm-focused information, and on the other to a sense of comradery with those who, like them, are taking on the burden of wrestling with two opposing selves in the interest of a greater good, real or imagined. (provided, of course, that these others are not participants in the opposing paradigm). There is however a definite problem with the alter ego, in that it is cruel and ruthless when used for purposes of social relation. The alter ego can care deeply for those who share its ideals, but when its aspirations are crossed or denied outright it becomes fearful and is prone to retaliation. The exact traits of the alter ego vary depending on how other processors of various mental stances are relating to the subconscious and unconscious of the person, but they are always carried to an extreme when used in place of the ego. This extremity has historically -- perhaps invariably -- tainted the radical experience with tragedy, for the price of creating a new paradigm of thought is the conflict of energies both mental and non-mental as the alter ego invades the social sphere and constellates the alter egos of friends and foes alike. But this conflict creates the opportunity for a new beginning by the radical's ideology: the radical's inevitable fall is the testament to a failure of intention which makes the true path, the path of objectivity and consensus, shine brighter. The radical is an unwitting pawn in a much larger game, caught up in forces that are so insurmountable as to strike them with fear should they glimpse into the truth at all. The radical does not deny truth because they cannot understand it; they deny it because they understand it all too well, that their ideals are destinations without location, that their hoped for final victory over their opponent by means of some fantastic new point of view, some masterful strategy, some incredible new technology or collective determination, will never come. Victory is always temporary: it must be won day by day, hour by hour by continuing to live. The only victory which can be considered permanent is peace between oneself and the opponent. But the greatest problem of the radical is not that victory in unacheivable; no, the eternal downfall of the radical is the simple fact that their enemy does not really exist outside of themselves. Their experience of struggle is completely self-contained, and their enemy appears as ominous as it does only because there is something as yet unfinished in their own person. The same could be said about everyone radical or no, but there is a singular difference in that the non-radical is always putting these internal disputes to rest in leu of a final coming to terms with the part of them they do not understand. The radical finds their internal chaos as insurmountable as the obstacles they would overcome, because the radical has made this chaos their soul.