If I say "in my mind", I create the problem of presuming that subjectivity can follow objectivity. That objectivity – which means accuracy – actually has the ability to be betrayed; since when should that be the case?

Well, if ever there was a time to illustrate that such a thing is possible, it might as well be now.

In recent time, I’ve arrived at an adequate and satisfying concept, in regards to my perception of the my disposition in regards to the actress Talitha Bateman: namely, that I am the only unreal force that exists in the universe in order that Bateman can be the only force in the universe which is real – I am the literal manifestation of absence, and Bateman is the literal manifestation of presence (and nothing else in the universe has the ability to imitate either myself or Talitha Bateman).

And then there’s the Iraq War, from 2003. I reference the Iraq War, because of a pressing need I feel to make use of the sense that I’m an absence to Bateman’s presence.

Giving my power to the Iraq War, by letting it borrow my right to be a father to Talitha Bateman, ought to seem like enough. In case it isn’t, is it then counter-productive to just let the Bush administration teach the Iraq War how to be a father to Talitha Bateman (I suppose if the Iraq War were replaced with Las Vegas, that would probably do the trick, but since I’ve chosen the Iraq War that leaves me in a state of doubt over the Bush administration); to just have the Bush administration oversee the Iraq War seems wrong – it might not be the actual answer, however, it makes me feel less dissatisfied if I let the Taliban come to the aid of the Bush administration.

Without the Taliban, my exact feeling is that just having the Bush administration teach the Iraq War how to be a father to Talitha Bateman is to exhibit pointlessness – if the Iraq War has the ability to be taught, then why should it be the Bush administration that does it? But then again, the very idea of the Iraq War being a substitute for myself in and of itself is pointless – so I’m therefore dealing with the problem of questioning a natural redundancy after a contrived redundancy.

A natural redundancy is a contrived meaning. A contrived redundancy is a natural meaning. To question a contrived meaning after a natural meaning makes perfect sense – ergo, the Taliban have some sense of excuse to be an overseer of the Bush administration.

But can I teach the Taliban? That’s the real issue at hand. If I interject, and train the Taliban to train the Bush administration to train the Iraq War to be a father to Talitha Bateman, aren’t I just then becoming the source of antagonism?

To be the absence, I have to respect the need for a substitute; however, since Bateman is the presence, that means that I’m in the privileged position to eternally manipulate any substitute – in other words, the way in which objectivity can tolerate being betrayed by subjectivity is if the subjective has no awareness of the ability to betray