Ants Can Show You The Way To Love

Ants are great teachers of Love… especially the first aspect of ‘Love is Patient’. 

What do I mean by that?

Well, I’ve been gifted with a special situation where tiny little red ants would appear from seemingly nowhere, land on my arms and sink their pincers in. Ouch! But because I believe ants are not the problem (and that it’s really us not keeping clean enough–in my instance, it would be food / bowls / coffee left on the desk while I’m working), I’ll just blow at the tiny ant, so it’ll fly away, and land on the floor where it came from.

Flicking the ant off is not an option–the strength of our hand crushes it.

So this went on for months. On and off, while working, I’ll feel a sharp pain, and pause to blow the lucky ant off. I say ‘lucky’ because I half suspect or imagine they’ve passed around a message to bored ants wanting to experience what it’s like to bungee jump off my arm!!!

Anyway. One day… I wasn’t in a good mood at all. In fact, I was getting agitated and impatient over something I can’t even remember now. In the midst of that, bam! I slapped at whatever was causing me pain to push it off my arm when I realised 1 second too late what I’ve done to the ant.

By observing my self at that moment, I see that when I allow myself to be dictated by Impatience and reflex reaction towards pain, I end up causing more pain–or in this case, the untimely death of an ant. 

What is the big deal? You may ask.

It’s just an ant! You may say.

I do pray that one day, you will be filled with so much Love that you can’t help but even feel Love for ‘pesky’ little bugs like Ants. Believe it or not, they do have their place on earth, even right beside you, and on your arm. For they are God’s creatures, a divine creation, just like you, put here for a purpose. And if you allow them to, they can be your Teachers.

That aside, I’m not here to debate how you feel about ants–that’s not the point. Let’s focus on the big picture: 1. Can I allow people / creatures / situations that “test my patience” to teach me something about myself? 2. Can I be more aware of my own reaction / response when “tested?” 3. What does my Impatience say about my ability to Love? 4. What were the consequences of me not caring enough to be Patient with someone, in the past? 5. How can I learn and grow from it?

“Love is a learned, emotional reaction. It is a response to a learned group of stimuli and behaviours.

Like all learned behavior, it is effected by the interaction of the learner with his environment…

Love is a dynamic interaction, lived every second of our lives, all of our lives…

…One learns to react in a particular way to a certain degree to a specific stimulus. That reaction will be the visible index of his love…

The more he learns, the more his opportunities to change his behavorial responses and thus expand his ability to love…

If one wishes to know love, one must live love, in action.” – Leo Buscaglia, ‘Love’ – pg 90, 91

Can today be the day you practice expanding your ability to Love? 🙂

The more you Be Love, the sooner you’ll see: Love Attracts Love. 

But don’t take my word for it. Grow in Love. Discover it for yourself.




“Fear less, hope more; Eat less, chew more; Whine less, breathe more; Talk less, say more; Love more, and all good things will be yours.”- Swedish Proverb

The Love Culture on FB:

BBC News uses ‘Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre’ – Telegraph

“One of my pictures from Iraq was used by the BBC web site as a front page illustration claiming that those were the bodies of yesterday’s massacre in Syria and that the picture was sent by an activist. Instead the picture was taken by me and it’s on my web site, on the feature section regarding a story I did In Iraq…” – Marco Di Lauro,

By Hannah Furness
10:39PM BST
27 May 2012

Link to Full Article by Furness for Telegraph

Photographer Marco di Lauro said he nearly “fell off his chair” when he saw the image being used, and said he was “astonished” at the failure of the corporation to check their sources.

The picture, which was actually taken on March 27, 2003, shows a young Iraqi child jumping over dozens of white body bags containing skeletons found in a desert south of Baghdad.

It was posted on the BBC news website today under the heading “Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows”.

The caption states the photograph was provided by an activist and cannot be independently verified, but says it is “believed to show the bodies of children in Houla awaiting burial”.

A BBC spokesman said the image has now been taken down.

Mr di Lauro, a professional photographer, said: “I went home at 3am and I opened the BBC page which had a front page story about what happened in Syria and I almost felt of from my chair.

“One of my pictures from Iraq was used by the BBC web site as a front page illustration claiming that those were the bodies of yesterday’s massacre in Syria and that the picture was sent by an activist.

“Instead the picture was taken by me and it’s on my web site, on the feature section regarding a story I did In Iraq during the war called Iraq, the aftermath of Saddam.

“What I am really astonished by is that a news organization like the BBC doesn’t check the sources and it’s willing to publish any picture sent it by anyone activist, citizen journalist or whatever. That’s all.

He added he was less concerned about an apology or the use of image without consent, adding: “What is amazing it’s that a news organization has a picture proving a massacre that happen yesterday in Syria and instead it’s a picture that was taken in 2003 of a totally different massacre.

“Someone is using someone else’s picture for propaganda on purpose.” – Marco Di Lauro

Love Is Our Kismet

I was led to look up the word Kismet this morning, driven by this perpetual, maddening, deep craving…

…for a kiss.

Why? Why this hunger? Why this longing? Why this obsession for a kiss?

My mind asks.

My heart says,

Kiss me… kiss me…

Kiss me with the

Kiss of Life…



What is that?

Like a Clue dropped from Heaven, to my Question of the day,

I discover that Kismet is a Turkish word, from the Arabic ‘Qisma’,

meaning Portion and Lot.

I remember holy verses declaring, “God is my Portion.”

I’ve never thought about the meaning of it until now.

God is my… Kismet?

What does that mean?

I then discovered, it is saying,

God is my Inheritance. God is Mine.

And because God is Love…

…Love is my Mine. Love is my Inheritance.

Love is my Portion, and my Lot.

Love is my… Kismet.

Ahh… Love is the reason why.

My mind finally understands.

That this longing to be kissed,

is an inner hunger… for Love.

I am not in a relationship right now. This takes getting used to in the beginning, but after the initial Fear Of Loneliness has faded away, the peace that comes from Solitude has taken over. Alone, but not lonely.

Except for times when I feel a bad craving for a kiss… then I wallow in self-misery over what I think is Loneliness, gnawing a hole in my heart.

But I am glad this morning, I am able to understand that it is my inner hunger and drive for Love–and my mind’s limited translation of that intangible feeling into a physical craving for a kiss–that is confusing me.

I am Blessed to be led to the word Kismet this morning,

So I can see the bigger picture,

So I can understand and hear,

the deepest prayer of my heart:

Kiss me…

…Kiss me with the Kiss of Life

…Kiss me with the Kiss of Truth

…Kiss me with the Kiss of You…

My Lord, My Love, My Way to Life.




“Fear less, hope more; Eat less, chew more; Whine less, breathe more; Talk less, say more; Love more, and all good things will be yours.”- Swedish Proverb

The Love Culture on FB:

Power of Truth in Syria, Libya– NYTimes Interview with Lizzie Phelan

Author: Lizzie Phelan

Irish free-lance journalist Lizzie Phelan shares her recent interview by New York Times reporter Robert Mackey, discussing the skewed Western media coverage of Syria and Libya. Phelan says  “grasping a complex reality does not depend on the amount of information accumulated in favor of any one side, but on the diversity of informed points of view reflecting a given situation.” 
Otherwise, as Phelan says, the first casualty of war will always be truth.

Robert Mackey : Since your impressions of what is happening in Syria seem to be strikingly different from those of many foreign reporters who have worked there recently, I wanted to ask you about how you found your sources and what you think accounts for the different picture painted of the conflict by other journalists.
Lizzie Phelan : First of all I hope that you will give me the opportunity to answer all of your questions in full, so that the context which is always lacking can be provided. I also hope that you will ask all the questions that you proposed when I agreed to do this interview. If not I will myself publish the full questions and my full answers. 
This question is flawed, because what you really mean is that my impressions of what is happening in Syria seem to be strikingly different from those reporters from the NATO and GCC countries which have a vested interest in destabilising Syria. Of course my impressions are actually shared by the majority people of this world, from those countries outside of NATO and the GCC and particularly those which are victims of these powers. But because they do not own a powerful media their voices are drowned out by the impressions of the minority reflected in the mainstream media of the NATO and GCC countries. 
So in relation to my sources, I find my sources through a number of different means, but my main means is I talk to ordinary people every where I go and in Syria this is not difficult because people are really keen to speak about the crisis in their country, especially to foreigners who they feel strongly have a false impression about their country and current events. This was overwhelmingly, but of course not exclusively, the point of view that I encountered. And this is reflected in my reporting. 
In fact, like in Libya, I was so overwhelmed by the volume of people that wanted to talk about their anger at the fabrications in the media of the NATO and GCC countries that my colleague Mostafa Afzalzadeh and I decided to make a documentary so that we could reflect what ordinary Syrian people are really saying. This documentary will actually expose how if it was not for such media the crisis in Syria would have been over before it started and the people of Syria would be living in peace now. 
The difference with journalists from mainstream media in NATO and GCC countries is that they come with an agenda, and that agenda is to cover what they call is a “revolution” happening inside Syria and to give substance to the false claims that the Syrian government is a threat to the Syrian people. So if for example they walk down the street and they have 10 people telling them there is no revolution happening in Syria and actually the people want the army to protect them from the terrorists that are flooding the country, and then they have one person who tells them that there is no democracy in Syria, they will discard the 10 as government spies and run with the one person who said something different, I witnessed this myself.
If they were to do the reverse and reflect the majority view on the street, then this would undermine the coverage of their media organisations over the previous 10 months that have painted a picture of a government hated by its people, and in turn it would undermine their own credibility as journalists working for those organisations. 
But in time they will not be able to supress the truth. However, like in Libya the danger is that the truth only comes out when it is too late, when a country has been successfully destroyed by the NATO and GCC countries, with the vital help of their media. Then the western media can afford to be more honest, although never entirely, because the aims, for example of regime change, of their paymasters have been achieved. 
I on the other hand am not concerned about towing a line in order to “make it” as a journalist working for one of the world’s most respected media organisations, I became a journalist in order to reflect the truth at whatever cost that may come. The only thing I am loyal to is my conscience. 
RM : Since you have appeared on Press TV and Russia Today, as well as Syria state television, do you have any concern that you might seem to be endorsing the governments that finance those channels, or do you see your role more as that of an activist, opposing the policies of the US and UK, than as a neutral reporter?
LP : This question in itself is a very deceitful and loaded question, and it is taken out of all context. It implies that BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera etc and the journalists who work for those organisations are independent from their financiers. If I worked for BBC does that mean that I am endorsing the British government which funds it and that government’s centuries long and present abuses across the world? 
Why is the NYT concerned about my work for Russia Today and Press TV? I challenge you to find me specific examples of journalists that work for these organisations that have engaged in bad journalistic practise. Why are you not concerned about journalists who work for Al Jazeera that is funded by and reflects the foreign policy of the Qatari emir and royal family. Al Jazeera has been proven many times over in the past few months to have published false reports about events in the region, not least Libya. 
How can their journalists be neutral when their employer hosts the largest US military base in the region, and has been responsible for sending thousands of fighters, weapons and a lot of money to kill and destroy in Libya and is now doing the same in Syria in addition to having called for Arab troops to invade the country. Likewise, I have yet to hear the NYT question the “neutrality” of journalists who work with the British state funded BBC, or journalists who work for the Murdoch Press which is well documented to have strong connections with all the major western powers which are responsible for the greatest violations of international law. 
So the question should start from the premise that no news organisations are neutral, and each represent a certain ideology. So if you ask me if I feel more at peace working for news channels which reflect the ideology of states that are defending themselves from constant attack by the west, that is an ideology that opposes foreign interference in their affairs and promotes their own independence, or would I feel more comfortable working for media organisations that reflect the arrogant ideology that western civilisation is superior and should be imposed across the world by any means necessary, then I think any person with the slightest understanding of global politics and at least recent history would say the former. 
An additional deception in this question is that there is such a thing as neutrality and that journalists are able to separate their own beliefs in what they choose to cover and how they cover it, or indeed the pretence that journalists do not hold an opinion. 
As I said, I am not concerned about others perceptions of these things, because anyone who perceives that because I have worked for Russia Today or Press TV it means that I am in someone’s pocket, whereas if I was working for a western organisation I would be “neutral,” is deceiving themselves and choosing to look at a tiny portion of a whole picture. 
Incidentally, when I was stuck in the Rixos Hotel in Tripoli with those 35 other journalists, one of the days, two American journalists rushed into the hotel and swiftly exited when they realised that the hotel was being defended by Gaddafi supporters. Actually one of the two in particular was worried about the Gaddafi supporters harming him, but they requested that they just leave. Why was he so worried? Because he said he was related to somebody senior in the NTC no less. I have never seen his neutrality being called into question by the mainstream media. 
Finally, what is an activist? If it means that the role you play has the effect of agitating events, then I would say that we are all in some shape or form activists. For anyone to think that their actions are benign and have no repercussions, is at best naïve. This is particularly true for all journalists, whose actions as reporters have greater repercussions than other ordinary citizens of this world. And this is of course because their voice is afforded a special platform, and when you study journalism you are taught that a reporter should act as the eyes and ears of the general public, and thus you have greater influence than the ordinary citizen. 
So you either use that platform to promote justice and the principles of international law which are fundamental for everyone’s well being, or you bury your head in the sand about the responsibility that comes with that platform and you use it to promote your own personal career or interests. 
RM : I also wanted to find out more about your reporting from Libya, and ask how you respond to allegations that you supported the government of Col. Qaddafi? All in all, I’m trying to get a better understanding of what drives you to speak out against Western governments but apparently lend your support to governments, like those in Iran, Russia and Syria now, that have been accused of serious human rights abuses.
LP : Again this is another deceitful question and epitomises the manipulative approach of the world’s powerful media, such as newspapers like the NYT. 
Here you are asking me this question because the west’s major powers and media criminalised Muammar Gaddafi, Iran etc by accusing them of abusing human rights. 
So you are trying to put me into this trap by saying that if I support Muammar Gaddafi, and Iran I also support abuses against human rights. 
But first of all this question of human rights is an absolute fallacy and is at present the number one stick used to bash leaders of independent developing countries in order to provide a moral justification for the imposition of the western system upon those countries. 
My colleague Dan Glazebrook did an interview on Russia Today last week following the decision by Doctors Without Borders to stop their work in Libya in despair at the appalling torture against tens of thousands of pro-Gaddafi Libyans by those rebels who have been cheered on for the past year by the western media. He reminded the public that according to HRW reports from the past 5 years, there were three possible cases of deaths in custody in Libya over 5 years, which is really exemplary, but in Britain there were 4 cases last month alone. So I would be far more concerned about being associated with the British government and thus its appalling human rights record. And that is just Britain – the rest of the NATO countries, particularly the US and also Israel and the GCC countries fare no better. 
Factually speaking Libya was a paradise for human rights and Muammar Gaddafi was due to receive a human rights award prior to the NATO onslaught. And of course Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa and much of the region, including a much higher standard of living than Saudi Arabia which hardly ever is in the spotlight in the mainstream western press. 
Nonetheless, you wouldn’t dream of implying that a journalist who works for the Sun or the Guardian in Britain, both of which take a position of supporting one way or another the Conservative party or the Labour Party, of supporting abuses on human rights because they work for papers which support parties that have committed some of the greatest injustices known to man throughout history all across the world and up until this present day. Injustices which far outstrip any injustices that have occurred at the hands of any leader of a developing country. 
So why the two-faces? This is all part of the prejudice in western media that western civilisation is superior to anything else and therefore those responsible for the injustices committed by the west need not be held accountable, and anyone who speaks out against that should have their name dragged through the mud. 
Malcolm X famously said “if you are not careful, the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the oppressor”, and that quote rings true more than ever today most recently in the way that the western and GCC media has covered events in Libya and Syria. 
But to respond to your question directly, as I have stated, what I support is respect for international law, and the most important principle in international law, and one of the main stated aims for the body that was set up to uphold international law, the now redundant UN, is respect for the sovereignty of nations and non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Recent history shows that the root of the greatest injustices known to man is the violation of these principles and so anyone who violates these principles is a criminal and should be treated as such, and anyone who is a victim of such violations should be defended. 
Now not only these principles, but all relevant international laws and norms were violated in the case of Libya and the west’s treatment of Muammar Gaddafi, and this has been well documented. The same violations are playing out against the Syrian government. 
How is it that one can moralise about human rights, but not give a second’s thought to the fact that a senior member of the US government, Hilary Clinton called for the death of another head of state, Muammar Gaddafi, just two days before he was assassinated. I hope I don’t need to tell you that that was entirely illegal and abhorrent. 
I am wholly against such violations, just as anybody who believes in international law and justice would be, and therefore I will support the right of anyone to defend themselves against this violation by any means necessary. 
I have been accused by some of being a mouthpiece for the Libyan government but now the truth is coming out, we know that the essence of the former Libyan government’s analysis has been proved correct, whilst almost everything reported by the mainstream Western media has been proved wrong: 
The rebellion WAS indeed armed from the very first day of the uprising (this was confirmed in Amnesty’s in-depth report from late last year) – not a peaceful movement 
The rebels WERE working hand in glove with Western intelligence agencies to facilitate a NATO blitzkrieg 
The NTC ARE disunited and incapable of governing the country. 
The rebels DO have a racist, even genocidal, policy towards sub-Saharan African migrants and the third of the Libyan population is dark skinned 
Gaddafi’s government WERE NOT conducting aerial attacks against protesters or mass rape (or indeed ANY rape, according to Amnesty) 
There HAD NOT been 10,000 people killed in Benghazi by Gaddafi’s government during the uprising (as the NTC claimed), but 110 (Amnesty figures again) killed on both sides prior to NATO’s attack 
On every major issue, the Gaddafi government’s analysis and figures have been proven far far closer to the truth than the NTC’s and the western media’s initial and unequivocal position. So ANY journalist telling the truth about these issues would have “sounded like a mouthpiece of the regime”, because the government’s analysis was essentially correct, and has now been proven correct. 
Lizzie Phelan




“Fear less, hope more; Eat less, chew more; Whine less, breathe more; Talk less, say more; Love more, and all good things will be yours.”- Swedish Proverb

The Love Culture on FB:

The West’s Greatest Fear

Author, Dan Glazebrook – The West’s greatest fear 

Western attempts to destroy Syria have not been going to plan, revealing that what the West fears most is a peaceful resolution to the crisis, writes Dan Glazebrook 

The strategy was simple, clear, tried and tested. It had been used successfully not only against Libya, but also Kosovo (in 1999), and was rapidly underway in Syria. It was to run as follows: train proxies to launch armed provocations; label the state’s response to these provocations as genocide; intimidate the UN Security Council into agreeing that “something must be done”; incinerate the army and any other resistance with fragmentation bombs and Hellfire missiles; and finally install a weak, compliant government to sign off new contracts and alliances drawn up in London, Paris and Washington, whilst the country tore itself apart.

Result: the heart torn out of the “axis of resistance” between Iran, Syria and Hizbullah, leaving Iran isolated and the West with a free hand to attack Iran without fear of regional repercussions.

This was to be Syria’s fate, drawn up years ago in the high- level planning committees of US, British and French defence departments and intelligence services. But this time, unlike in Libya, it has not all gone according to plan.

First, there was Russia and China’s veto of the “regime change” resolution at the UN Security Council in October 2011, followed by a second veto in February of this year. This meant that any NATO attack on Syria would be denied the figleaf of UN approval, and seen instead as a unilateral act of aggression not just against Syria, but potentially also against China and Russia as well.

Vicious and reckless as they are, even Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama do not necessarily have the stomach for that kind of a fight. That left the burden of destroying the Syrian state to NATO’s proxy forces on the ground, the “Free Syrian Army” — a collection of domestic and (increasingly) foreign militias, mostly ultra-sectarian Salafi extremists, along with a smattering of defectors and Western special forces.

However, this army was not created actually to defeat the Syrian state; that was always supposed to be NATO’s job. As in Libya, the role of the militias was simply to provoke reprisals from the state in order to justify a NATO blitzkrieg. Left to their own devices, they have no chance of gaining power militarily, as many in the opposition realise.

“We don’t believe the Free Syrian Army is a project that can help the Syrian revolution,” said leader of the internal Syrian resistance movement Haitham Al-Manna, recently. “We don’t have an example of where an armed struggle against a dictatorial regime has won.” Of course, one could cite Cuba, South Vietnam, and many others, but what is certainly true is that internal armed struggle alone has never succeeded when the government is the only party in the struggle with any significant mass support, as is the case in Syria.

This reality was brutally driven home in early March in the decisive battle for the Baba Amr district of Homs. This was supposedly one of the Free Syrian Army’s strongholds, yet they were roundly defeated, leaving them facing the prospect of similar defeats in their last few remaining territories as well. The opposition groups are becoming increasingly aware that their best chance of meaningful change is not through a military fight that they will almost certainly lose, and which will get them killed in the process, along with their losing their support and credibility, but through negotiations and participation in the reform process and the dialogue that the government has offered.

This prospect — of an end to the civil war and a negotiated peace that brings about a reform process without destabilising the country — has led to desperation amongst the imperialist powers. Despite their claims to the contrary, a stable Syrian-led process is the last thing they want, as it leaves open the possibility of Syria remaining a strong, independent, anti-imperialist state — exactly the possibility they had sought to eliminate.

Hence, within days of Kofi Anan’s peace plan gaining a positive response from both sides in late March, the imperialist powers openly pledged, for the first time, millions of dollars for the Free Syrian Army: for military equipment, to provide salaries to its soldiers, and to bribe government forces to defect. In other words, terrified that the civil war in Syria is starting to die down, they are setting about institutionalising it. If violent regime change is starting to look unlikely, the hope instead is to keep the country weak and on its knees by sucking its energy into an ongoing civil war.

At the risk of making the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) appear even more out of touch with ordinary Syrians than it does already, its Western backers have increased the pressure on it to fall into line with this strategy, leading to open calls from the SNC leadership for both the full-scale arming of the rebellion and for aerial bombardment from the West.

This has caused huge rifts in the organisation, with three leading members defecting last month, because they did not want to be “accomplices in the massacre of the Syrian people through delaying, cheating, lies, one-upmanship and monopolisation of decision-making.” The SNC, according to one of the three, Kamal Al-Labwani, is “linked to foreign agendas that aim to prolong the battle while waiting… for the country to be dragged into a civil war.”

This month, one of the few SNC leaders actually based in Syria, Riad Turk, called on the opposition to accept the Anan peace plan, “stop the bloodshed” and enter into dialogue with the government — a call not echoed by his fellow SNC colleagues abroad. Likewise, the main peaceful opposition grouping within Syria — the National Coordinating Committee — has fallen out with the SNC over the latter’s increasingly belligerent role as a mouthpiece of foreign powers.

NCC leader Al-Manna spoke out against the Free Syrian Army recently, saying “the militarisation of the Syrian revolution signifies the death of the internal revolution…We know that the Turkish government is playing an important role in the political decisions of the Free Syrian Army. We don’t believe that an armed group can be on Turkish territory and remain independent of Turkish decisions.”

So, there is a growing perception, even amongst the Syrian opposition movement itself, that both the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council are working in the interests of foreign powers to prolong a pointless civil war.

Western policy-makers are playing a dangerous game. Short of a NATO attack, their best option for the destabilisation and emasculation of Syria is to ensure that the ceasefire fails and the fighting continues. To this end, they are encouraging their proxy militias to step up their provocations: the purpose of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s and French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé’s statements about “other measures” still being on the table is to keep the idea of a NATO attack alive in the heads of the rebels so that they continue to fight.

Indeed, many more foreign fighters have been shipped into the country in recent weeks, according to The Washington Post, and these have been launching devastating bomb attacks in Damascus and Aleppo. US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford is a protégé of John Negroponte, who organised Contra death squads to destabilise Nicaragua in the 1980s; he will almost certainly have been organising similar groups in Syria during his time there last year and for similar purposes.

Nevertheless, the destabilisation agenda is not going according to plan.

The internal opposition in Syria is becoming increasingly frustrated with the way things are progressing, and a clear split is emerging between those based outside the country, happy to see Syria consigned to oblivion in order to please their paymasters and further their careers, and those who actually have to live with the consequences.

The reckless attacks carried out by the armed militias are increasingly alienating even those who once had some sympathy for them, especially as their foreign membership and direction is being exposed ever more clearly. Having been proven unable to win and hold territory, these militias are turning to hit- and-run guerrilla tactics. But the guerrilla, as Mao put it, is like a fish that can only survive in a sea of popular support. And that sea is rapidly drying up.

* The writer ( Dan Glazebrook)  is a political analyst. Source:




“Fear less, hope more; Eat less, chew more; Whine less, breathe more; Talk less, say more; Love more, and all good things will be yours.”- Swedish Proverb

The Love Culture on FB:

Love Is A Country Called Syria

“Everywhere in the world people are in search of love, for everyone is convinced that love alone can save the world, love alone can make life meaningful and worth living.

But how very few understand what love really is, and how it arises in the human heart.

It is frequently equated with good feelings toward others, with benevolence or nonviolence or service. But these things in themselves are not love.

Love springs from awareness…

Think of the terror that comes to a rich man when he sets out to really see the pitiful condition of the poor, to a power-hungry dictator when he really looks at the plight of the people he oppresses, to a fanatic, a bigot, when he really sees the falsehood of his convictions when they do not fit the facts. 

The terror that comes to the romantic lover when he decides to really see that what he loves is not his beloved but his image of her.

That is why the most painful act the human being can perform, the act that he dreads the most is the act of seeing.

It is in that act of seeing that love is born, or rather more accurately, that act of seeing is Love. 

Once you begin to see, your sensitivity will drive you to the awareness, not just of the things you choose to see but of everything else as well…

…If you ever allow yourself to see it will be the death of you. And that is why love is so terrifying, for to love is to see and to see is to die. But it is also the most delightful exhilarating experience in the whole world. For in the death of the ego is freedom, peace, serenity, joy.

If it is love that you truly desire then set out at once on the task of seeing, take it seriously and look at someone you dislike and really see your prejudice…

…and look long and lovingly at human faces and human behaviours.

Take some time out to gaze in wonder at Nature, the flight of a bird, a flower in bloom, the dry leaf crumbling to dust, the flow of a river, the rising of the moon, a silhouette of a mountain against the sky.

And as you do this the hard, protective shell around your heart will soften and melt and your heart will come alive in sensitivity and responsiveness.

The darkness in your eyes will be dispelled and your vision will become clear and penetrating and you will know at last what love is.” – Anthony De Mello, ‘The Way To Love’ 

I must admit that for some time now, I’ve refused to SEE what is going on in Syria.

I refused to let my heart break over this country like it did over Libya.

I refused to be rocked with anger by the War that is invading Syria.

And I refused to cry over the injustice and cruelty and death that is plaguing the country.

I refused to feel the sorrow I felt for Libya when its people turned on its own people and its ousted leaders were treated as less than humans–even in their death.

I refused to be a part of this Pain that is crying out for Love, for as long as I could. But today, my heart refuses to stay in the protective shell I have carefully kept it in for the past few months.

Love has broken through and led my eyes to See. 

And now that I’m Seeing Syria for the first time today…

I’ve deliberately avoided ALL war coverage on Syria for now… It is not that I wish to avoid Reality. Its precisely because of Reality that I wish not to see the country through the eyes of Sympathy, Sorrow or Anger…

…but through the eyes of Love.

I wish to see the country, its people and its culture, for what it is, as they are, minus the tainted imagery of violence, anger and hate… spreading like poison in the hearts of children–forever robbed of their innocence.

If you could spare just 5 minutes… may the next 5 minutes of Syria fill your heart with wonder at its beauty, and Love for its people: 

And for those of you who find it in your heart to do so, Pray for Syria.




“Fear less, hope more; Eat less, chew more; Whine less, breathe more; Talk less, say more; Love more, and all good things will be yours.”- Swedish Proverb

The Love Culture on FB:

Love Is A Miracle That Is You

HELLO U.K, United Arab Emirates, Thailand, India, Brazil, Finland, Singapore, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, United States, MALAYSIA! ♥

Thank you for taking the time to check out The Love Culture, whoever you are (yes, I love that WordPress is very private–it does not reveal anything more about the visitors, other than the country of origin, so breathe out and relax!) 😉

Looking at the map above, it seems like it’s just a matter of time before The Love Culture conquers the world… 😀 One heart at a time! 🙂

I leave you with one of my favouritest (this word should really be in the dictionary) quote of all time…

“BE the change you wish to see in the world,” – Ghandi

…and a beautiful, meaningful song by Jason Mraz: 93 Million Miles to sing Love into your heart: “…there is always a hand that you can hold on to… just know, that wherever you go, no you’re never alone…” 




“Fear less, hope more; Eat less, chew more; Whine less, breathe more; Talk less, say more; Love more, and all good things will be yours.”- Swedish Proverb

The Love Culture on FB:

Love Is A Gentle Sorrow

Love is a gentle sorrow…

Despite the sadness, there is no crushing guilt.

Despite the longing, there is no condemnation.

Despite the pain, there is no despair.

Despite the grief, there is no need to blame.

In quietness and in solitude, the tears flow, but willingly so, for having experienced the Joy of Love, and of being Loved.

In darkness and in waking, the heart sighs, but gratefully so, for the Gift that was given, and the days shared together.

In gentleness and in love, the spirit mourns, but freely so, for assurance from within, that your beloved in Heaven is free at last, to live a life of true Happiness, as such that can’t be imagined, while here on earth.

And so, looking up, I realised, more than anything else, I am happy thinking of how happy Pebbles must be right now…

…Love is a gentle sorrow.

So I’ve come to learn today.

I guess this song’s been stuck on repeat the past 3 days for a reason…




“Fear less, hope more; Eat less, chew more; Whine less, breathe more; Talk less, say more; Love more, and all good things will be yours.”- Swedish Proverb

The Love Culture on FB: