This page has three parts: Independent Biblical Identification, Cross-Entry Synthesis, and Observation Notes.
03-1900-03-15 Biblical Resonance Analysis
Volume 3 — March 15, 1900 “Jesus feels disarmed by the victim souls.”
STAGE ONE — INDEPENDENT BIBLICAL IDENTIFICATION
The Privation Lament: The Soul’s Delirious Grief
“I was consumed with sorrow and I felt such a fever as to become delirious… ‘How can You just leave me like this?… not even the friends of this earth act in this way!‘”
Psalm 27:9 — “Don’t hide your face from me. Don’t put your servant away in anger. You have been my help. Don’t abandon me, neither forsake me, God of my salvation.” Hogan cites this explicitly. The Psalmist’s cry that the divine face not be hidden — the exact structure of Luisa’s lament — is the canonical form of the privation grief. Already confirmed at February 19 (Hogan’s citation for Luisa’s fear of the privation). The lament is not sinful but the interior expression of the union’s depth. Type: affective/meditative
Psalm 42:1–4 — “For the Chief Musician. A contemplation by the sons of Korah. As the deer pants for the water brooks, so my soul pants after you, God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God? My tears have been my food day and night, while they continually ask me, “Where is your God?” These things I remember, and pour out my soul within me, how I used to go with the crowd, and led them to God’s house, with the voice of joy and praise, a multitude keeping a holy day.” Hogan cites this explicitly. The tears-as-bread and the soul-thirsting are the Psalmic form of Luisa’s “consumed with sorrow… tears… fever.” The Psalmist’s “where is your God?” is the mocking equivalent of what Luisa herself is expressing: the felt absence of the living God. Type: affective/meditative
Psalm 63:1 — “A Psalm by David, when he was in the desert of Judah. God, you are my God. I will earnestly seek you. My soul thirsts for you. My flesh longs for you, in a dry and weary land, where there is no water.” Hogan cites this explicitly. The fainting flesh in the dry and weary land is the most physical expression of the privation’s interior reality: the body registers the soul’s desolation. The February 16 mortification-as-breath entry made mortification the soul’s vital atmosphere; the absence of the divine presence is the absence of that breath. Type: affective/meditative
Song of Songs 5:2–6 — “I was asleep, but my heart was awake. It is the voice of … rose up to open for my beloved. My hands dripped with myrrh, … I opened to my beloved; but my beloved left, and had gone away. My heart went out when he spoke.” Already confirmed at multiple entries as the bridal-absence motif. Luisa’s lament — “not even the friends of this earth act in this way! When they have to be apart, at least they say good bye to each other” — is the bride of the Song lamenting the beloved’s disappearance without farewell. Type: affective/meditative
Disarmed by the Victim Soul: The Intercession that Conquers Divine Justice
“If I am in good relations even with one creature, I feel disarmed and I have no strength to lay hand to the chastisements, because when I make Myself seen, if you see that I have to send chastisements, you begin to say: ‘Pour them into me – make me suffer’; and I feel conquered by you, so I never lay hand to the chastisements.”
Genesis 18:20–32 (paraphrase) — Hogan cites this explicitly. Abraham’s intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah is the volume’s most sustained OT precedent for the victim soul’s power to restrain divine chastisement. “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?… Far be it from you to do such a thing — to kill the righteous with the wicked… Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” Abraham negotiates from fifty down to ten; the divine concedes at each stage. The victim soul’s “pour them into me” is the March 15 form of Abraham’s intercession: the one who stands in the breach between the divine and the condemned. Type: direct doctrinal parallel
Ezekiel 22:30 — “I sought for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I would not destroy it; but I found no one.” Already confirmed as RP-7’s primary text and activated at November 1 and November 13. The March 15 entry names what Luisa does when she says “pour them into me”: she stands in the breach that Ezekiel 22:30 said could find no one. The victim soul who offers herself is the one God sought and could not find in Ezekiel — found now. Type: direct doctrinal parallel
Psalm 106:23 — “Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had Moses, his chosen, not stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath, so that he wouldn’t destroy them.” Already confirmed at November 13 and November 24 as the breach-standing precedent. Moses standing in the breach is the OT’s most successful intercession against the divine wrath: the chosen one whose intercessory presence alone averts the destruction. The victim soul who says “pour them into me” is the Moses-figure in the March 15 structure. Type: direct doctrinal parallel
Colossians 1:24 (paraphrase) — Already confirmed as the volume’s doctrinal spine. “In my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.” The “pour them into me — make me suffer” is Colossians 1:24 as a voluntary act: the victim soul requests the suffering because she understands that filling up what is lacking is the mechanism by which the chastisement is averted. The chastisement is not removed but redirected into the co-sufferer. Type: direct doctrinal parallel
Jonah 3:4–10 (paraphrase) — Hogan invokes Jonah implicitly (“God threatened Nineveh that in 40 days they were going to be destroyed… but when the king said okay… God changed completely”). The Nineveh intercession is the canonical example of the divine’s responsiveness to repentance and intercession: the threatened chastisement is entirely revoked when the creature’s response changes. The victim soul’s “pour them into me” is the extreme individual form of Nineveh’s collective response: total openness to bearing the judgment oneself rather than allowing it to fall on others. Type: typological
Romans 5:6–8 — “For while we were yet weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. … God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” The Christological ground for the victim soul’s disarming of the divine justice: Christ’s death for the ungodly while they were still sinners is the prototype of the victim soul’s “pour them into me.” The divine is “conquered” by the love expressed in willing self-substitution — the same love that conquered the divine justice at Calvary. Type: Christological/Trinitarian
”You Too Want to Bind Me”: The Confessor’s Obedience and the Triple Exchange
“Turning to the confessor with a serious aspect, He said to him: ‘You too want to bind Me by giving her this obedience to suffer?’ And while saying this, He began to share the pains of the cross with me… ‘Where is the confessor?… Just as he refreshed Me, I want to refresh him.‘”
Matthew 16:19 (paraphrase) — Already confirmed at November 10 and March 2 for the binding-and-loosing authority. The confessor’s obedience “binds” Christ — the priestly authority of Matthew 16:19 is operative here in its most intimate form: the confessor’s repeated insistence on the obedience to suffer the crucifixion is the priestly binding that Jesus acknowledges (“you too want to bind Me”) and ultimately concedes to. The priestly authority is real even when it binds the divine. Type: direct doctrinal parallel
Hebrews 5:8 (paraphrase) — Already confirmed at November 10, January 1, and March 2 for OBL-1. “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” The Christ who “feels conquered by obedience” and is “slow in letting” the obedience proceed is the Christ who learned obedience through suffering — and who now teaches Luisa the same lesson through the same mechanism. The Christological model (obedience through suffering) is enacted in the victim soul’s acceptance: “Lord, whatever You want.” Type: Christological/Trinitarian
John 13:14–15 — “If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should also do as I have done to you.” The reciprocal service — “just as he refreshed Me, I want to refresh him” — is the John 13 principle: the divine who receives ministry from the creature gives ministry back. The foot-washing is the structural precedent for this reciprocal refreshment: the divine who washed feet now says “he refreshed Me; I will refresh him.” Type: direct doctrinal parallel
Revelation 3:20 — “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, then I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with me.” The mutual refreshment — the divine wanting to refresh the confessor who refreshed Him — is the Revelation 3:20 table-fellowship in its most intimate and immediate form: the divine has been received (the confessor’s obedience received the divine), and now the divine invites the mutual table-fellowship. Type: affective/meditative
God the Softy: Divine Responsiveness to Love
“I feel conquered by you, so I never lay hand to the chastisements, and men do nothing but grow bolder.”
Hosea 11:8–9 — “How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is turned within me, my compassion is aroused. I will not execute the fierceness of my anger. I will not return to destroy Ephraim, for I am God, and not man—the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.” The divine’s own confession of being conquered by compassion — “my heart recoils within me” — is the most concentrated OT statement of what March 15 names as the victim soul’s power to disarm the divine. The divine cannot execute the burning anger because the divine heart recoils. In March 15, the divine heart recoils because the victim soul says “pour them into me.” Type: direct doctrinal parallel
Exodus 32:11–14 (translation pending) — “But Moses implored the Lord his God and said, ‘O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people?‘… And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people.” Already confirmed at November 13. The divine’s relenting at Moses’s intercession — “the Lord relented” — is the OT canonical form of the March 15 disarming: the victim soul’s intercession causes the divine to change course. Type: direct doctrinal parallel
STAGE TWO — COMPARISON WITH HOGAN’S COMMENTARY
CORRESPONDENCES
Psalm 27:9 / Psalm 42:1–4 / Psalm 63:1 — All three confirmed. Hogan cites all three explicitly for the privation lament.
Genesis 18:16–33 (Abraham’s intercession) — Both identified. Hogan cites explicitly as the primary OT precedent for the victim soul’s power to restrain divine chastisement.
The divine disarmed by the victim soul — Both analyses confirm this as the entry’s central doctrinal claim. Hogan: “the moment we make any sign of repentance, he changes his mind completely.”
Jonah 3 (implicit) — Both analyses confirm the Nineveh precedent for divine responsiveness to intercession.
The confessor’s binding of the divine — Both analyses confirm this as the continued development of the priestly-mediation arc.
“Love is not loved” (Francis of Assisi) — Hogan closes with Francis of Assisi’s phrase, which Hogan says Luisa will also use: “love is not loved.” The implicit scriptural ground is 1 John 4:8, 16 (God is love) and John 3:16 (the love that gave the Son). The divine is not loved as He loves.
DEVIATIONS
No significant deviations.
ADDITIONS — MINE
- Song of Songs 5:2–6 — the bride lamenting the beloved’s unannounced departure; the bridal register for “not even friends say goodbye”
- Ezekiel 22:30 — RP-7: the sought-for breach-stander now found in Luisa
- Psalm 106:23 — Moses standing in the breach; the chosen-one intercessor form
- Colossians 1:24 — filling up Christ’s afflictions; the “pour them into me” doctrinal ground
- Romans 5:6–8 — Christ dying for sinners while still sinners; the Christological prototype of willing self-substitution
- Hosea 11:8–9 — the divine’s own heart recoiling from its anger; the OT interior form of being conquered by compassion
- Exodus 32:11–14 — the Lord relenting at Moses’s intercession
- Matthew 16:19 — the binding authority; the confessor binding the divine
- Hebrews 5:8 — learning obedience through suffering; the Christological model for “Lord, whatever You want”
- John 13:14–15 — the foot-washing reciprocal service; structural ground for “just as he refreshed Me, I want to refresh him”
- Revelation 3:20 — the table-fellowship of mutual receiving; the divine refreshing the one who refreshed Him
ADDITIONS — HERS
“God is a softy”: Hogan’s most theologically distinctive pastoral addition — “God is a softy… he will threaten all kinds of punishments, but the moment we make any sign of repentance, he changes his mind completely.” This is the pastoral form of Hosea 11:8–9 and the entire intercession tradition: the divine is not the hard judge of caricature but the one whose heart recoils from executing anger when confronted by love and repentance.
Jonah 3 (Nineveh): Hogan invokes Jonah explicitly as the paradigm case of total divine relenting. Not merely a reduction (as with Abraham’s fifty-to-ten negotiation) but a complete reversal: the threatened destruction becomes blessing. The victim soul’s intercession is the individual form of the community-wide repentance that Nineveh enacted.
“Love is not loved” (Francis of Assisi / Luisa): Hogan’s closing citation — Francis of Assisi’s phrase that Luisa will also use — identifies the entry’s underlying theological problem: the divine who is love encounters the human race that does not love love in return. The victim soul’s “pour them into me” is the specific act of love that counters the “love is not loved” reality: the victim soul loves love by absorbing what the unlove of others has generated.
VIP / SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
No formal VIP designation. However, the doctrinal content — the victim soul disarming the divine, the divine’s confession of being conquered by love — is among the most theologically striking in the volume.
STAGE TWO SYNTHESIS
The entry’s governing claim — the victim soul disarms the divine justice by offering to absorb the chastisement — is confirmed by both analyses through the Abraham (Genesis 18) intercession precedent and the Jonah relenting-pattern. Stage One’s most significant additions are the Ezekiel 22:30 breach-standing (RP-7), Psalm 106:23 (Moses in the breach), Colossians 1:24 (filling up what is lacking), Hosea 11:8–9 (the divine’s own heart recoiling), and John 13:14–15 (the foot-washing reciprocity for the refreshment exchange). Hogan’s most significant additions are the “God is a softy” pastoral reframing and the Jonah total-relenting precedent.
Cross-Entry Synthesis
Volume 3 — March 15, 1900 “Jesus feels disarmed by the victim souls.”
CROSS-ENTRY SYNTHESIS
The Privation Lament
“I was consumed with sorrow and I felt such a fever as to become delirious… ‘How can You just leave me like this?‘”
Psalms 27:9, 42:1–4, and 63:1 — all confirmed by both analyses — establish the lament as the Psalmic form of genuine mystical privation: not sinful complaint but the registered depth of the union’s longing. The Psalmist who says “my tears have been my food day and night” (Psalm 42:3), who thirsts like a dry and weary land (Psalm 63:1), is expressing the same ontological orientation as Luisa: the soul whose entire appetite is directed toward the divine experiences the absence as physical suffering. Hogan: “those of us who have never had these extraordinarily close encounters with the Lord cannot understand the sheer agony of coming back to ordinary everyday life.”
The Song of Songs 5:2–6 (the beloved departing without farewell, the soul failing when he left) provides the bridal register: Luisa’s “not even the friends of this earth act in this way — when they have to be apart, at least they say goodbye” is the bride’s lament in its most colloquially direct form. The informality of the language (“forgive me if I speak in this way”) is the entry’s pastoral gift: the volume’s most theologically elevated soul speaks to the divine with the same imperfect ardor the Song’s bride does.
Disarmed by the Victim Soul: The Intercession that Conquers Divine Justice
“If I am in good relations even with one creature, I feel disarmed and I have no strength to lay hand to the chastisements… I feel conquered by you, so I never lay hand to the chastisements.”
This is the entry’s — and arguably the volume’s — most doctrinally striking claim: the victim soul’s “pour them into me” renders the divine unable to execute the chastisements. The divine confesses Himself conquered by love.
The chain of OT precedents, confirmed by both analyses, establishes this as the biblical tradition’s consistent pattern rather than a novelty: Abraham negotiates from fifty to ten (Genesis 18), Moses stands in the breach and the divine relents (Exodus 32:11–14, Psalm 106:23), the divine finds no one to stand in the breach and the land is therefore destroyed (Ezekiel 22:30), Nineveh repents and the divine’s threatened judgment becomes complete reversal (Jonah 3). The march of precedents is consistent: the divine’s threatened chastisements are not inexorable but responsive to intercessory love. March 15 names the mechanism explicitly: the divine is “disarmed” and “conquered” by the victim soul’s willingness to absorb what was meant for others.
Hosea 11:8–9 is the most theologically concentrated OT statement of this dynamic from the divine’s own interior: “My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my burning anger.” The divine confesses the interior movement — the recoiling of the heart — that the victim soul’s love produces. March 15 makes this interior movement explicit in a way Hosea only shows from within the divine: the reason the divine cannot execute the chastisements is that “I feel conquered by you.” The heart recoils because the love conquers.
Colossians 1:24 (“filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”) names the doctrinal mechanism: the victim soul’s “pour them into me” is not merely sentimental but operative. The absorption of the chastisement into the co-sufferer’s body redirects the judgment’s energy into the reparatory stream. Romans 5:6–8 provides the Christological prototype: “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” — the one who bore what others deserved, disarming justice through substitutionary love. The victim soul’s “pour them into me” is the extension of Calvary’s logic through the co-sufferer’s willing participation.
Hogan’s pastoral reframing — “God is a softy… the moment we make any sign of repentance, he changes his mind completely” — is the most significant pastoral addition, connecting the March 15 disarming to the entire OT intercession tradition and countering the “hard God of the OT” caricature. The divine who is love (1 John 4:8) cannot resist love’s approach; the victim soul’s love is the specific approach that disarms what the loveless world has generated.
”You Too Want to Bind Me”: The Confessor’s Authority and the Triple Exchange
“You too want to bind Me by giving her this obedience to suffer?… He began to share the pains of the cross with me… ‘Just as he refreshed Me, I want to refresh him.‘”
The March 15 confessor-sequence is the most elaborate priestly-mediation instance in the volume. Matthew 16:19 (the binding-and-loosing authority) and Hebrews 5:8 (learning obedience through suffering) together establish that the confessor’s insistence — the repeated obedience — is not imposition but the authentic exercise of the authority Christ granted at Caesarea Philippi. The divine acknowledges the binding: “you too want to bind Me.” The priestly authority is real even when it binds the divine.
The exchange that follows has three movements: (1) the confessor’s repeated obedience pressures the divine; (2) the divine shares the cross with Luisa; (3) the divine seeks to refresh the confessor who refreshed Him. The third movement is the most theologically surprising: John 13:14–15 (the foot-washing reciprocity: “as I have done, so you should do to one another”) is inverted in the most intimate possible form — “just as he refreshed Me, I want to refresh him.” The one who washes feet says to the one who has served Him: I will serve you in return. The confessor who pressed the divine into the sacrifice is now sought out by the divine for mutual refreshment.
Revelation 3:20 (“I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me”) is the eschatological table-fellowship that the mutual refreshment anticipates: the divine standing at the door, received, eating together. The confessor who enforced the obedience has opened the door; the divine enters for the mutual meal.
The Voluntary Fiat and the Disarming Mechanism
Jesus asks: “And you, what do you want to do?” Luisa replies: “Lord, whatever You want.” This is the volume’s governing fiat (Luke 1:38, Luke 22:42) in its most spontaneous and lowest-register form: not a formal declaration but the instinctive response of the soul whose will has been enclosed within the divine will since February 26. The February 26 threshold — “I feel as though surrounded by the adorable Will of God, in such a way that I find no opening through which to go out” — is here enacted in the smallest possible statement: “Lord, whatever You want.” The circle has no opening because the soul within it no longer reaches for one.
This fiat is precisely what disarms the divine justice. The soul who has surrendered the will completely removes the last obstacle the divine might have to dwelling with her in her suffering — and the “I feel conquered by you” is the divine’s response to the total surrender. The disarming is not dramatic but quiet: one soul saying “whatever You want,” and the justice that was prepared against millions is redirected into the willing interior of the one who asked to receive it.
”Love Is Not Loved”: The Entry’s Underlying Theology
Hogan’s closing — Francis of Assisi’s phrase that Luisa will also use, “love is not loved” — names the entry’s governing theological problem and the victim soul’s specific vocation. The divine who is love (1 John 4:8) meets a world that does not love love in return (1 John 4:10: “in this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us”). The chastisements arise not from the divine’s cruelty but from the accumulated unlove of a world that has rejected what it was made to receive. The victim soul who says “pour them into me” is the soul who loves love — who takes into her body what the loveless world has generated — and thereby becomes the counter-force that disarms the justice which lovelessness has made necessary.
The March 14 ecclesial strategy and the March 15 victim-soul theology are the two expressions of the same underlying reality: the Church’s renewal requires both the communal identification and formation (March 14) and the individual victim-soul’s intercessory suffering that holds the chastisements at bay while the renewal proceeds (March 15). The two entries form the volume’s most complete statement of the Church’s situation and the victim soul’s role within it.
Synthesis Conclusion
Dominant biblical imagination: The entry operates within the intercession-that-disarms-judgment tradition (Gen 18, Exod 32:11–14, Ps 106:23, Ezek 22:30, Jonah 3) for the disarming theology; the privation-lament tradition (Ps 27:9, 42, 63, Song 5:2–6) for the opening; and the binding-authority / reciprocal-refreshment tradition (Matt 16:19, Heb 5:8, John 13:14–15) for the confessor-sequence.
Most load-bearing scriptural traditions: Ezekiel 22:30 / Psalm 106:23 (the breach-standing as RP-7’s activation — the one God sought and could not find, now found in the victim soul), Hosea 11:8–9 (the divine’s own interior recoiling — the most concentrated OT statement of the “conquered by love” dynamic), and Colossians 1:24 (the filling-up of what is lacking — the doctrinal mechanism by which the disarming is operative).
Most theologically significant findings:
First, the explicit divine confession — “I feel conquered by you” — is the volume’s most theologically striking statement about the victim soul’s power. The divine is not conquered by force or argument but by love: the victim soul’s “pour them into me” presents a love that the divine cannot resist. Hosea 11:8–9 is the most direct scriptural parallel: the divine heart recoiling from its own anger because the compassion is stronger. March 15 names the mechanism that Hosea only shows from within.
Second, RP-7 (the breach-standing) reaches its most explicit Volume 3 activation: Ezekiel 22:30 said “I found none” who would stand in the breach; the victim soul who says “pour them into me” is the one now found. The entry is RP-7’s doctrinal fulfillment in its most personal and direct form.
Third, the OBL-1 / February 26 / March 2 / March 15 arc is now complete: obedience as the structural link (November 10) → the divine will as the soul’s possession (February 26) → the union of wills as the most sincere kiss (March 2) → “Lord, whatever You want” as the disarming fiat (March 15). The theological structure (OBL-1), the ontological dwelling (February 26), the relational kiss (March 2), and the operational surrender (March 15) are four expressions of the same complete self-gift.
OBSERVATION NOTE
RP-7 (Breach-standing) — VOLUME 3 MOST EXPLICIT INSTANCE: March 15 is RP-7’s most explicit Volume 3 activation: the victim soul’s “pour them into me” is the standing in the breach that Ezekiel 22:30 could not find. RP-7 has now been confirmed at November 1 (pillar vision, first activation), November 13 (divine co-suffering, second activation), and March 15 (the disarming of divine justice, most explicit activation). The pattern is consistent: the victim soul’s intercessory suffering is what prevents the chastisements that the sins of the age have made just.
“Love is not loved” — new Volume 3 recurring phrase: Hogan’s invocation of Francis of Assisi’s phrase, identified as one Luisa will also use, introduces a theological formula that may become a recurring tracking item. The phrase names the underlying theological problem of the entire victim-soul vocation: the divine who is love meets a world that does not love love in return. The victim soul’s vocation is the specific counter-movement against the “love is not loved” reality.
OBL-1 arc complete through March 15: The obedience-link theology (November 10) has been progressively deepened through January 1 (circumcision), February 26 (divine will as the soul’s possession), March 2 (union of wills as the most sincere kiss), and March 15 (“Lord, whatever You want” as the spontaneous fiat of the enclosed soul). The arc is now theologically complete at Volume 3’s most advanced level.
Observation Notes
See this note in volume context →
03-1900-03-15
RP-7 (Breach-standing) most explicit Volume 3 activation — “pour them into me” is the standing in the breach that Ezekiel 22:30 said could find no one. RP-7 confirmed at November 1, November 13, and now March 15 in its most personal and direct form.
“I feel conquered by you” — the volume’s most theologically striking divine confession. Hosea 11:8–9 is the most direct scriptural parallel: the divine heart recoiling from its own anger because the compassion is stronger. March 15 names the mechanism Hosea only shows from within.
OBL-1 arc complete — the obedience-link theology (November 10) → divine will as possession (February 26) → union of wills as kiss (March 2) → “Lord, whatever You want” as the spontaneous fiat of the enclosed soul (March 15). Four expressions of the same complete self-gift, fully developed across Volume 3.
March 14–15 as the volume’s complete ecclesial-and-victim-soul statement — March 14 names the Church’s renewal strategy; March 15 names the victim soul’s intercessory suffering that holds the chastisements at bay while the renewal proceeds. Together they express the Church’s situation and the victim soul’s role within it.
“Love is not loved” introduced — Francis of Assisi’s phrase, which Hogan says Luisa will also use, names the underlying theological problem of the victim-soul vocation: the divine who is love meets a world that doesn’t love love in return. Candidate for recurring tracking.