The narcissism of R.A.J.

[Rafic Soormally]

Narcissus, the Greek hero after whom narcissism is named, became obsessed with his own reflection. When calling upon Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam to sack Minister Dharam Gokhool, R.A.J. was merely looking at his own reflection and believing in his "celebrity" status in anonymity.

Following a French grammatical rule, I will refer to the un-named author writing under the initials R.A.J. as a he. I have read, with a certain amount of disgust, his article « April the first : When sanctimonious idiots queue up to spout nonsense », posted on the Défi Media Group website on 1st April 2008 and also published in Le Mauricien of the same date. He believes that by quoting (perhaps from a Book of Quotations) from well-known figures such as, Napolean Bonaparte, Albert Einstein, George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair), Rudyard Kipling, Mark Twain, this would make him a big shot as he would like to think he is. He is so much in love with himself that he even quotes himself to spew out even more nonsense. His flaw is that he uses quotations as recommendations upon which he bases his own thinking and then holds them to be true for every other person. On the other hand, he denies Cassam Uteem, ex-President of the Republic of Mauritius, the right to think for himself when he insults and accuses Mr Uteem of suffering from 'thought paralysis'. [Ref. R.A.J. comments on the Défi Media Blog, 29 April 2008 : « Cassam Uteem et la nation mauricienne » of Parvez Dookhy]. In fact, by stating that Paul Bérenger should not present himself as PM at the next general elections, [Ref. Mr Uteem's interview in le Week-End 27th April 2008], Cassam Uteem does not base his thoughts by copying any author like R.A.J. tends to do incessantly. One wonders who is truly suffering from « thought paralysis »!


R.A.J. quotes Mark Twain as saying that « April 1st: This is the day upon which we are reminded of what we are on the other three hundred and sixty four. »This may be true of him and Mark Twain, but not necessarily true for other people unless he possesses the heavenly gift to reflect their minds when he admires himself. He uses this totally inappropriate quotation to attack and insult the Minister for Education Dharam Gokhool who, through a self-quote (of 229 words), R.A.J. describes as a « most incompetent and ludicrous Minister », « arrogant », « proverbial rabbit », « unsuited for the post of Minister of Education », « the young child hiding under the blankets in the hope that the nasty monster will simply vanish », and much more, all in the context of Gokhool's proposals for Star Colleges, and demanded, under anonymity, that Mr Gokhool be « removed » from office « to take him out of his misery ».


R.A.J. then uses those attacks, insults, allegations and opinions against Minister Gokhool to back his further opinion that the Minister should resign in the aftermath of the sad death of one 13 year old student as a result of the torrential rains on Wednesday 26th March 2008 which could not even be predicted by the Meteorological Office. In fact, four people sadly lost their lives in this Act of God, but R.A.J. only discriminated against Mr Gokhool by barking for his resignation and who he clearly holds responsible for the death of the student Laura Paul when he says: « Laura Paul's memory deserves nothing less than those responsible for this squalid level of incompetence to be sanctioned ». He effectively demanded that the Minister should have used his discretion and ordered the closure of all schools in the absence of a report form the Met Office forecasting torrential rains that day. But he is unable to show that the Minister acted unlawfully by not using his discretion. Surely, even though many people may be unhappy with what they regard as Mr Gokhool's inaction, R.A.J. is in no position to tell a Minister when and how to use his discretion. Who does he think he is? He is merely pushing his narcissism (love of himself) to the extreme. When he sarcastically describes the PM Dr Ramgoolam as « the astute politician he likes to think he is » when calling upon him to sack Minister Gokhool, R.A.J. was merely looking at his own reflection and believing in his ‘celebrity’ status in anonymity. In fact, the « idiocy » and « nonsense » he is talking about can only be a reflection of himself which he is trying to hide through his anonymity, the use of big words (often made up and inappropriate) and bombastic language.


R.A.J. accepts that Minister Gokhool « should not be made to carry the can on his own », but he does not single out any one else for resignation. He argues that the « opposition is rightly condemning Gokhool and the Met Office for the tragedies of last Wednesday » when, in truth, Paul Bérenger, leader of the opposition, has absolved the Met Office and held Minister Gokhool and the PM Ramgoolam solely and entirely responsible [le Mauricien 31st March 2008 « Bérenger : Gokhool et le PM seuls responsables »].


In fact, R.A.J. has misinterpreted and misapplied Mark Twain's saying, since he has done the reminding for Minister Gokhool when the Minister should have done his own reminding about himself. His delusion through his love of himself makes him believe that he can enter the mind of Mr Gokhool and do the thinking for him. It never crossed his mind that Mr Gokhool may not share Mark Twain's and his view of how people think. The un-named author couples his misunderstanding of Mark Twain by doing the reminding for Robert Mugabe and the Governor of the Bank of Mauritius as well. This is a clear attempt to link Dr Ramgoolam's government with the Mugabe's of this world, which appears to be his hidden agenda. R.A.J. has completely misunderstood the substance of Mark Twain's quotation, which is pivotal to his article, and is misleading readers in the process by writing over 2000 words of sheer drivel.


M Rafic Soormally



Posted on Le Défi Media Group Blog, 8th May 2008
Le Défi Media Group - The narcissism of R.A.J.

Published in le Mauricien, 14th May 2008
Le Mauricien

[Rafic Soormally]

This is a follow-up to the above.


Sobah Jawaheer

In response to Mr Jawaheer’s « Rafic Soormally's obsession with R.A.J. » [le Mauricien 19th May 2008], I would like to point out to the author that my reply to R.A.J.’s misleading April the 1st article originally published in le Mauricien did not « escape from Le Défi's website » to le Mauricien as he alleges. It was sent for publication, boycotted at first and then published while intense debate was going on on the Défi Blog. Mr Jawaheer should ensure that he checks his facts before making gratuitous allegations. Secondly, he should also check and learn the meaning of « obsession » before using it. Obsession implies persistence, for example the « persistent attack » made by R.A.J. against Ministers lawful limos, missions and per diem. Making a case for transparency regarding Ministers’ missions and expenses is one thing, but attacking Ministers persistently without proving any wrongdoing is quite another. The right to reply to anyone’s published articles has nothing to do with obsession. Refuting R.A.J.’s inaccuracies, misinterpretations and wild attacks against others as long as he writes is not obsession. Mr Jawaheer is only fooling himself by quoting selected childish comments made on the Défi Blog which may very well have been made by one person, if not himself. He already posted a similar reply on the Défi website on 10th May 2008 , and then ran away when responded to.

He censored other comments, such as:

• « Thank you Mr. Soormally for taking the time and patience in making your analysis, views and discussion displayed here on Le Defi Media Group. Too often, readers do not comprehend or ignore many articles posted. We need to be encouraged to make informed opinions based on evidence rather than "HOT WIND." An intelligent and reflective writer will give his considered analysis based on facts rather than fantasies. » « He [R.A.J.] may think that he is a fully self actualised individual when his basic needs have not even been met. This is where his difficulties begin », by Munna

• « R.A.J delivers long flowery proses to satisfy the needs of the pret-a-penser clientele. In typical Berenger style, he just bandwagons on talks-of-a-town, as portrayed by our "independent" media, he packages them with a dose of anecdotes + bombastic wordings + what filters through his unconcsious biases. », by CitizenG.

• « Carry on Rafic. You are in your rights. » «Fantastic! Rafic, your opinion on R.A.J has succeeded in bringing about interesting issues », by Jayen Tyekevlingum.

• « I'm actually quite happy about Mr Rafic Soormally's article...I thought I was the only one thinking what a weird person R.A.J is. His articles reflect a bit his own state of mind. I give credit to Mr Rafic for spotting the narcissism. Probably we should add clinical depression or schizoprenia to it and some form of personality disorder than I still can't put my finger on. », by I_feel_sorry_for_him

Mr Jawaheer is oblivious of the fact that R.A.J. misinterpreted Mark Twain, for which he should apologise. If he is unhappy with the criticisms levelled against R.A.J.’s writings, he should advise the latter not to have his articles published. Whether R.A.J. chooses to reply himself, or under a different pseudonym, or let others do the dirty job for him merely reflects upon him. On the Défi Blog, Mr Jawaheer was asking if the « certain press » I mentioned referred to « le Mauricien, l'Express, Mauritius Times, or le Défi », but to Mr Gilbert Ahnee he ‘knows’ it refers to le Mauricien. He flatters, grovels and begs le Mauricien to boycott all criticisms of R.A.J. from those he accuses of being « idiots », which I find most insulting and totally reject. His mind has been poisoned by R.A.J’s similar use of insults.


Karina C. Chavry-Grewe

I refer to Karina C. Chavry-Grewe’s comments « So what? Anonymity is not a big deal?», le Mauricien 19 May 2008, in reply to my response to R.A.J. entitled « The narcissism of R.A.J. », le Mauricien 14th May 2008.

First of all, my response was about R.A.J.’s misunderstanding of Mark Twain whose quotation about April the first he referred to and upon which he based his opinions. For reasons best known to her, Karina Chavry-Grewe has chosen to blatantly ignore the substance of the article and picked up a statement of fact about anonymity therein and made as if R.A.J.’s anonymity was under attack which she sets out to ‘defend’. In fact, she is doing the same mistake as R.A.J. by basing her comments on the wrong assumption due to her own misunderstanding (deliberate or otherwise) in order to make personal attacks rather than address the arguments. No one is saying that someone has no right to write under anonymity. Mark Twain himself wrote under his nom de plume, although he was not anonymous. If someone using mere initials can be regarded as a pen name, then so be it. But the fact remains that R.A.J.’s does write under anonymity, which anyone can refer to.

The point I made was that R.A.J. is abusing his anonymous status to attack, denigrate, insult and make gratuitous allegations against others, which he probably would not have done if he were using his real name. It is quite possible that R.A.J. may be a Civil Servant privy to a great deal of confidential information, such as, about missions and per diem,hence his use of initials. But he must use his anonymity wisely and not with impunity.

Hiding behind anonymity to attack others is often a sign of cowardice because the identified and known parties whose names, jobs, benefits, missions, homes, habits and so on are known do not enjoy the benefit of knowing the attacker’s identity so that they may defend themselves on the same level. For example, when, in his article « When inconvenient facts are ignored » [Le Défi 09 April 2008], R.A.J. rudely speaks of Ministers’ « old, saggy bums touching the new leather seats » of their limos, those Ministers should also have the opportunity to comment on the type of backside R.A.J. has and say what it has been touching. If Karina C. Chavry-Grewe finds R.A.J.’s impolite, disgusting and degrading comments « delectable », by which she means tasty, delicious and mouth-watering, she is quite entitled to do so with her taste buds but not with others’. I believe Mauritians generally have much more refined tastes.

Although Ms Chavry-Grewe has professed her bias, can she honestly tell readers whether April Fool’s day is considered as a day of foolishness or whether it is the day she is reminded of what she did the other 364 days? If she believes it is the latter, can she also say that, out of the love of herself, she can reflect or hold this belief as true for everyone else as R.A.J. effectively made out? Or, is it simply a mere excuse for R.A.J. to delve in his usual verbal diarrhoea in attacking others, not to be confused with the « rampant diarrhoea » he wished for the SADC guests who he insults as « parasites » in typical style? [Ref. « The SADC Conference: Parasites engorging themselves on an emaciated corpse », Défi Blog, 22 April 2008]. Ms Chavry-Grewe appears to have a very perverted way to « délecter les écrits de cette personne », meaning R.A.J, not to mention the « arse lickers » he repeatedly mentioned in his ‘nobel prize’ winning piece « Politics in paradise island: The cult of mediocrity », Défi Blog, 15th April 2008.


MYI

The other anonymous person writing under the letters MYI [le Mauricien 20th May 2008] should take note of the above. Since he, or she (here we go again!), has read « The narcissism of R.A.J. » over and over again without understanding that R.A.J., through the love of himself, distorted the meaning of his quotation of Mark Twain and used it as a springboard to attack others, he needs to seek further guidance. As far as R.A.J.’s accusation of « thought paralysis », which is a form of dementia, against Mr Cassam Uteem is concerned, I already included a reference which MYI can refer to if he wishes to see the arguments on this particular matter.

M Rafic Soormally
London

PS. This is an amended version of the replies sent to Mr Gilbert Ahnee of le Mauricien on 22 May 2008.

[Giorgio B Hills]

Funny, you didn't quote a few remarkable quotes from DEFI's blog, such as:

----------------------------------------------

limeme ( Author)

said this on 09 May 2008 4:30:04 PM MUT

I would suggest the following:

1/ Please see a psychiatrist in order to resolve your unhealthy obsession with R.A.J. - failing that, many of our local "treters" would gladly help you, as you all seem stupid enough to believe any rubbish.

2/ Some of you should really spend their time smelling the fresh roses of London and enjoying the spring blossom rather than spending hours going through R.A.J.'s past papers and then some more hours drafting such ludicrous replies.

3/ Perhaps you may want to try some camomille tea..it is very good for insomnia and would enable you to sleep rather than pacing the floor thinking about new ways to deal with the problem you've created all on your own.

5/ Yours is a classic case of projection: you're ascribing all your failings and weaknesses on R.A.J.

6/ You sound like the typical 'Eden college' student who has to do anything to prove to those attending 'Star' colleges that you're just as intelligent as them. I hope that does not sound too snobbish but, smart as you are, you'll know what i mean.

7/ There were 27 replies to Dookhy's blog and the vast majority expressed similar views to R.A.J. It's therefore clear that this chap has a morbid obsession about R.A.J.

Now please... give us a break.

-------------------------------------------------------

The funniest thing is that above reaction shows exquisite British sarcasm...