Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Remembrance Without Commemoration. Brian Porter-Szucs on Roman Dmowski

Roman Dmowski 1864-1939
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland
Source: Wikipedia
Statue of Roman Dmowski in Warsaw. Erected 2006
Dmowski holds the Versailles treaty.
Source: Wikipedia 

Remembrance without Commemoration
by Brian Porter-Szűcs
Professor of History, University of Michigan

On January 2 the Union of the Democratic Left (Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej, or SLD) proposed that Edward Gierek be officially commemorated on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his birth. As many readers will recall, Gierek was the First Secretary of the communist party in the 1970s, and his legacy is (to put it mildly) controversial. He had a pragmatic and technocratic approach to governing, and during the first several years of his administration the Polish People's Republic achieved some noteworthy economic accomplishments.

Nonetheless, it was precisely Gierek's resistance to free labor unions that spawned the Solidarity movement, and while he was relatively restrained in his use of police power, he nonetheless presided over an authoritarian one-party state.

As a historian I'm always eager to use anniversaries as an opportunity to remember and reconsider the past, but I can't see much justification for celebrating Mr. Gierek. Doing so forces us to whitewash his ideological convictions in order to elevate his achievements.

Those on the right in Poland today would be quick to agree with what I have just written – in fact, they would likely do so in much stronger terms. Yet they are equally guilty of the sort of selective memory that the SLD displayed last week. In fact, they often place at the very center of their pantheon individuals with ideological baggage far heavier than that carried by Mr. Gierek.

First among these is the man widely considered the founder of modern Polish nationalism, Roman Dmowski. He is often credited with leading the Polish delegation at the treaty negotiations in Paris following WWI, and it is true that he performed this task well. But if Dmowski were just a diplomat, even a highly skilled one, he would hardly provoke so many vehement opinions a century later. The real source of his fame is as the founder and leader of the National Democratic movement.

The worldview represented by that movement is best summarized in a quotation from an early essay by Dmowski entitled "Półpolacy" [The Half-Poles], first published in 1902.

While [my opponents] consider it possible to occupy an impartial position "in accordance with justice" in all conflicts between our nation and foreigners, we recognize an extensive sphere of matters in international relations in which there is neither right nor wrong, only competition between irreconcilable interests, in which one stands on one or the other side not from a feeling of justice, but from a feeling of solidarity with one of the combating sides. They want always and everywhere to be only people, standing on guard for nonexistent or ridiculed laws, [but] we demand of everyone that in relations between their nation and foreign [nations] they feel above all that they are Poles.

In a book written that same year entitled Thoughts of a Modern Pole Dmowski wrote, "In relations with other nations there is neither right nor wrong, there is only strength and weakness."

Dmowski's thought would evolve a great deal over the coming decades. For example, he was harshly critical of the Catholic Church early in his career, but later came to see the clergy as an important source of national unity. His tactical alliance with the Church would temper the National Democratic movement somewhat, holding it back from some of the violence that typified other radical right movements from the interwar years in Europe. But that was an alliance that left many Catholics uneasy, because the core of Dmowski's thought remained grounded in the passages cited above.

Dmowski was an antisemite in every possible sense of that term, but we need not even dwell on that here. After all, he was hardly the only person in early 20th century Europe to express views that we would today find deeply offensive. Although the virulence of his hatred of the Jews put him towards the extreme end of the Polish ideological spectrum, even that doesn't set Dmowski apart.

What made him so important in his own day—and what makes his memory so troublesome even today—is that he linked his ethnic and racial antipathies with a pseudo-Darwinist conviction that all nations were necessarily and inevitably locked in a struggle for survival in which every gain for one nation had to equate with a loss for another. Based on this starting point, Dmowski saw all universal values as empty slogans as best, deliberate plots to weaken the nation at worst.

He was particularly hostile towards the messiness and contestation of democracy, because (as he put it in an article from 1903), internal dissent turned Poland into "an incoherent, loose mob" when in fact the nation needed to be "a strongly organized, disciplined army." For the same reason, he was an opponent of all forms of diversity, be they ethnic, religious, or ideological.

Dmowski was not a Polish patriot in the sense of being proud of his nation. In fact, he rarely said anything good about his fellow Poles, whom he considered culturally backward and fatally weakened by diversity and democracy. He hated Nazi Germany because it was German, but he expressed admiration for what he perceived to be its cohesion, unity, and determination.

Dmowski did not love the Poland that actually existed, with its distinctive cultural landscape or its rich multicultural past. He wanted to create a new Poland, one in which individuals were subordinated entirely to the goals of the nation. He explicitly and often repudiated the slogans of the 19th century Polish national movement, particularly the well-known cry "For Your Freedom and Ours." That line, Dmowski argued, encapsulated everything that Poland should reject, because it implied that everyone could be and should be free. Instead of fuzzy ideals like liberty, he believed, Poles should strive for victory.

If some would like to rehabilitate Dmowski today, let them do so with a full recognition of what he actually represented. There are those who would continue to honor his memory precisely because of his extremist views, but they are a small minority in Poland today, and their views have only shallow roots in the broader political tradition of their nation. And that is a reason for Poles to be truly proud.

***

I thank Prof. Brian Porter-Szucs for the above essay.

I would like to add the following three news clips, just a few accounts of many to be found. These events occurred in 1935 and 1936. The thugs were "Endeks," followers of Roman Dmowski.

1935 and 1936

Warsaw, Dec. 15 (JTA) –
Renewed anti-Semitic rioting flared in the University of Warsaw today when Nationalist (Endek) students attempted to segregate Jewish students in the mathematics college. Two Jewish students were severely beaten. The university was recently reopened after having been closed two weeks as a result of anti-Jewish disturbances. Deputy Emil Sommerstein today demanded of Minister of Education Swietoslawski that he force the Polytechnicum Institute to rescind its order obliging Jewish students to sit in "Jim Crow" sections of the classrooms.

Poznan, Poland, Nov. 25 (JTA) –
Twenty Jewish students in the chemistry and medical faculties of the University of Poznan today attacked and severely beaten by Endek students, members of the anti-Semitic National Democratic Party. The university rector refused to close the schools, declaring that the excesses were of a political nature. He advised the Jews to remain absent for two days.

LWOW, Poland, Sep. 27 (JTA) –
Anti-Semitic Nationalists today beat several Jews and raided Jewish-owned shops, breaking windows and stealing goods. They halted a trolley car on Zyblikiewcza Street, and, after forcing Jewish passengers to alight, beat them in the street.

Source for these clips: Jewish News Archive.

***

A Social Darwinist like Roman Dmowski must reject the Polish motto, "For your freedom and Ours," "Za naszą i waszą wolność." It is the position of this blog that defeating the Bieganski stereotype is part of that Polish tradition. Defeating the Brute Polak stereotype is part of a larger universal struggle against hate, and for truth and equality and human dignity. Further, it is clear that no believing Christian can adopt Dmowski's Social Darwinist views. The Catholic Church was Social Darwinism's greatest enemy. The Pope himself wrote, 

"Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds." Source



Flag of November Uprising 1831 Source: Wikipedia 


Flag raised in Belarus, 2010 Source




Exhibition pamphlet. Source

17 comments:

  1. As with all historical figures, I do not think that they can or should be either rehabilitated or condemned. I think that they should be understood.

    As I had said before, Roman Dmowski and the Endeks have been misrepresented. I have studied the Endeks in some detail, and must unequivocally say that what they believed is often at variance at what is being said about them. For those interested in details, please see my Listmania about Dmowski by clicking on my name in this posting.

    I also believe that Brian Porter-Szucs' seriously mischaracterizes Roman Dmowski. To get a sampling of this, please see my Amazon review of Porter-Szucs' WHEN NATIONALISM BEGAN TO HATE.

    As for this blog item, I think that one cannot understand a historical figure by quoting isolated statements from them, especially when placed outside the context of the times and of the relevant historical events that had led to these statements.

    For instance, social Darwinism was a common belief at the time. In any case, the Endeks were not a monolith. For instance, the Endek thinker Lutoslawski rejected "national egoism".

    The blog states that Dmowski was anti-Nazi because Nazism was German. Not only so. In his writings, Dmowski alludes to Hitler's messianic conduct, and the murderous Hitler-Roehm factionalism, and comdemns Nazism as inherently criminal in nature. Dmowski said this about 1934--long before the full nature of Nazism had become manifest.

    Otherwise, you state that the Endeks at first admired the dynamic nature of the early Nazi movement. True, but so did many others. Churchill at one time praised Hitler as a decisive leader. Even some German Jews, of all people, at first admired Hitler.

    The Endek movement should not be confused with the ONR--an offshoot. All his life, Dmowski condemned violence against Jews. As for boycotts, they were a standard practice of the time, hardly particular to Endeks and hardly particular to Jews as a target.

    Finally, I do not accept the selective indignation that is so typical of the political left--in this case as applied to Dmowski. Why is the boycott of Jews such a century-later professed moral outrage while the refusal of many Jews to support Polish national goals (which precipitated the boycott) not an issue at all?

    Perhaps we need to realize that neither side cared for the other, that history is never black and white, that both sides did wrongs, leave it at that, and finally move on about Dmowski.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Isn't this an area in which no discussion is really possible, because of the politics? I live in a world which is still putting up admiring memorials to Stalin and his Red Army, and one in which being a Stalinist is still perfectly acceptable in public life.

    It is a world in which Americans are not pressured to denounce and despise the architects of the Agent Orangeing of swathes of S.E.Asia. Yet that is surely one of the great crimes in a century of them.

    Looking at Roman Dmowski in the light of that its hard to know what to say, beyond, that, obviously, I disagree with him.

    For a start, eugenics is Darwinian, and allows for "unter" and "uber" - but Genesis says we are all the children of Adam, with an even closer common ancestor in Noah. We are all brothers and sisters, all fatally flawed, and we should love and help each other, waiting for our certain rescue from the horrors our first parents disobedience brought upon us.

    I believe that the Genesis account of our origins is true.

    So the blogpost above is another timely reminder of the vital urgency of the Christian preaching work - thank you. And I did manage to get out today for the first time in weeks - only to make one call - but at least it was a start. And I don't know which was more herky jerky - my walking, or my driving of the new car.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Dmowski was not a Polish patriot in the sense of being proud of his nation. In fact, he rarely said anything good about his fellow Poles, whom he considered culturally backward and fatally weakened by diversity and democracy"

    Curious, and what exactly did Pilsudski say about Poles? Does the profesorek not remember? Apart from that, was he wrong? He wanted the Polish nation to be a better version of Germans - aspirational perhaps but in the early 1900's, when Germany was at the peak of its powers militarily and scientifically, wrong? (BTW, in these pre-Hitler days, Jewish/Yiddish culture was frequently associated with Germans as well - being perceived as friends of Poland's fiercest occupier was no doubt not helpful - similar situation as in the Ukraine of the 1660s with Poles taking the place of Germans there).

    "Dmowski did not love the Poland that actually existed, with its distinctive cultural landscape or its rich multicultural past."

    First of all, why did he have to love Poland that actually existed? Do we have to? If we have to, does Code Pink and Moveon have to love the US of Bush? Did the profesorek support "hope and change" in 2008/12? If so, why didn't he love the US that actually existed?

    Further, if we dig to our past then why not dig to something pre-14th century? Are you ashamed of a non-diverse Poland full of peasants? "Rich multicultural past" - that's rich - I'm sure you are a supporter of the mosque at Ground Zero - built by, btw, a half-Pole that bows to mohammed (what a waste of a Polish woman's loins). You mean the Poland where Germans ran the cities, fat szlachta drank itself into a stupor, unassimilated Jews had a state within a state and 90% of the population (and close to 95% of the Slavic population btw) lived as peasants in serfdom whether they were Polish, Ukrainian or Belorussian? The Poland of the constant plague and Ottoman or Tatar raids? The Poland of Swedish, German, Moldovian, Russian, Prussian, Mongol invasions? That Poland? Yes, we love its multiculturalism - after all, multiculturalism uber alles. Wake up - the world is multicultural - but it won't be for long if we insist that every country, every family is also multicultural.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. calling someone a "profesorek" is derogatory... I find it offensive.
      Sebastian Rejak

      Delete
    2. SR I agree. As ever I will have to work harder at comment moderation. Posters can make any comment they want to make, one I agree with or not. It's not necessary to add ad hominem commentary.

      Delete
  4. "He explicitly and often repudiated the slogans of the 19th century Polish national movement, particularly the well-known cry "For Your Freedom and Ours."

    Again, so what? Were these the right slogans? When the Somosierra fools charged on three rows of Spanish batteries, most dying in the process, whose freedom were they fighting for and, importantly, how did their deaths help Poland? You want further proof that there is something to the Polish stereotype look at that event - when Napoleon sent Poles to Haiti, whose freedom did they fight for? Or maybe the point was to create Louis Polonia, the baseball player. When Kosciuszko and Pulaski came to the US, how did their actions help Poland in any way?

    The cry of "for your freedom and ours" is a cry that old men use to send young boys to their deaths in foreign lands - vide Iraq or Afghanistan. Or has the profesorek enlisted in the USMC and is shipping out tomorrow?

    "If some would like to rehabilitate Dmowski today, let them do so with a full recognition of what he actually represented. There are those who would continue to honor his memory precisely because of his extremist views, but they are a small minority in Poland today,"

    How do you know that? And why are the views set above "extremist"? Because you find them inconvenient?

    In addition, why does the owner (alleged) of this blog post JTA clippings -assuming they are factually unbiased and entirely correct (do we know that?), how do they relate to the topic at hand? That there were extremists within the ND movement - of course there were, were they actually part of that mainstream movement or were they part of neofascist organizations like ONR? There is a difference - to most - and to tar Dmowski with the behaviour of thugs by posting these clippings right under an article about him is dishonest, at the very least.

    Finally, what is this current fascination with ONR - very curious that a movement that for 20 years was practically nonexistent suddenly reappears in Poland, apparently well-financed and organized - given, for example, the BVD's penetration of the NPD, one has to assume that the current ONR is simply a pawn of the ruling clique serving as an excuse to further undermine our freedoms in Poland.

    Apparently, the campaign to attack Dmowski is part of that governmental effort - again curious because most people including Poles in the West do not discuss Dmowski at length at all - another created issue.

    Dmowski was an imperfect man and a product of his time - no one denies that - but so was Ben Gurion and yet the latter is celebrated (as he should be). So was Churchill who slaughtered Boers in South Africa and denied Indians their foodstuffs in WWII resulting in the deaths of millions. But we are told we can celebrate the latter but can't celebrate the former (warts and all).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous, please sign your posts with a real first and last name if you would like to see them posted.

    As ever, comment moderation is imperfect.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have tried to publish under a name but it will not let me - Henryk Siewierynski

    ReplyDelete
  7. Henryk Siewierynski, if you place your name in the text of your post, that's okay. Are the two posts above and the one below yours?

    Curious, as is typical with leftist diatribes, the profesorek just puts forth several assertions as if they were aspersions - as if the guilt were obvious - in effect, he says "he is a witch".

    "Although the virulence of his hatred of the Jews put him towards the extreme end of the Polish ideological spectrum" Can you ever use the word anti-semitism apart from the adjective "virulent"? Is that possible? Or are these two words glued in some neuron net in your head? Is there a non-virulent hatred? What are the examples of his alleges hatred? Is there a difference between hatred and dislike? What is it? All questions to which we can expect no answers.

    "a conviction that all nations were necessarily and inevitably locked in a struggle for survival in which every gain for one nation had to equate with a loss for another. Based on this starting point, Dmowski saw all universal values as empty slogans as best, deliberate plots to weaken the nation at worst."

    Was he wrong? What are American values? How do they fare in Quatar? People's Republic? Afghanistan?

    "He was particularly hostile towards the messiness and contestation of democracy, because (as he put it in an article from 1903), internal dissent turned Poland into "an incoherent, loose mob" when in fact the nation needed to be "a strongly organized, disciplined army." For the same reason, he was an opponent of all forms of diversity, be they ethnic, religious, or ideological."

    Given the traumatic history of the nation, it is hardly surprising that Mr. Dmowski had such views or was the author unaware of how the Polish Sejm and its liberum veto resulted in a degenerate state that ended with the partitions by three autocratic, discplined dictatorships? Moreover, the quote is from an article about 18th century pre-partition Poland - something the author conveniently omits.

    Again, was he wrong about democracy? The strength of democracy is not that the "people" (mob) rule, the strength of democracy is that it decreases the risk of a catastrophe should an idiot seize the reigns of power and screw up the country - but, if a smart tyrant takes over (think Frederick the Great or Steve Jobs) then things go much better than in a democracy. Democracy is a risk-aversion induced reduction to mediocrity - one may like that or not but it is hardly perfect.

    Finally, it is bizzarre and perversely hypocritical to set Dmowski apart from others of his time on the basis of his dislike of democracy. Was Dmowski the one who overthrew the republic or was it Pilsudski? Is there one word here about the latter? If not, why not?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Interesting points.

    A correction: Dmowski's dislike for Poles was not based on its pluralistic traditions--one that Dmowski never completely abandoned in any case. He disliked Poles for their passivity and lack of desire for self-improvement. Clearly, Dmowski was no "My country right or wrong" cheerleader.

    Since Dmowski is a long-dead historical figure of minimal legacy, one may wonder why the leftists have latched-on to him. I did too, until I realized the following:

    Left-wingers are masters at manipulating peoples' emotions through buzzwords and images. The images include contrived demons and bogeyman. Dmowski has thus been enlisted by the left as a contrived demon and bogeyman of everything that is, or is supposed to be, bad about being Polish. Never mind the actual facts about Dmowski and Endek positions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. yes --

    Henryk Siewierynski

    ReplyDelete
  10. ///achieved some noteworthy economic accomplishments.

    Which ones? Only last year Poland was able to pay-off the unnecessary, expensive party Gierek has thrown his people- in order to bribe them for their support of the decaying Communist party. In my opinion, as it was the suggestion of the SLD (post-communist party) to commemorate him I really think it was rather a try to get some media attention-as their polls are really bad right now.

    ///modern Polish nationalism

    I kind of dislike the word „nationalism“- mostly, because nationalisms are not all the same. There are those, who have an ethnic/racial basis, ones, that just want national self-realization, liberation from the nationalist yoke of another nation. It would help I think if this term could be differentiated a little bit.
    ///relations in which there is neither right nor wrong, only competition between irreconcilable interests
    In Political Sciences we call this: Political Realism. I know, it may sound cynical-but Dmowski,unfortunately, was right on this one I think. I mean- are countries like Belgium defamed for having possessed one of the most inhuman colonies there ever was (King Leopolds private thief-Kongo)? No-and people there still speak French as a national language. Is any nation down there speaking Polish? Well- to bad. Its not as if Poland is getting anything (like international recognition) for not having been a colonizer. Apparently, this is how the world works…Also, I think that, after Fukuyamas “End of History” proofed rather to be a continuation, Political Realism as a theory will have a great comeback I believe-maybe under a fancier name and of course claiming to have nothing to do at all with any Darwinian war (which can be also economical) for survival. For human nature has not changed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ///Dmowski saw all universal values as empty slogans as best, deliberate plots to weaken the nation at worst.

    Interesting thought-than why did he make an alliance with the Church in order to temper the hatred? Also, if he was so horrible- why did Dmowski look down on German national-socialism as being devoid of universal values (Ill have to look up the exact quotes-its somewhere in Mysli Nowoczesnego Polaka)? Why did he stress that his problem with “the Jews” is not a racial one-why did he look down on biological anti-Semitism en vogue in the West?
    Universal values are great and should be upheld-but I have come to believe that they can be abused for political gains. Deliberate? That depends. As an example- In the EU right now values like solidarity is invoked to get Poland and other countries to stem the burden of the Euro crisis-while at the same time its clear that the money Poland has pledged will be lost without helping the Greek nation-it will go to German and French banks (those, who had lend the Greek parliament money in order to buy German&French weapons they could not afford).In cases like these, solidarity has become an empty slogan I believe.

    ///For the same reason, he was an opponent of all forms of diversity…

    That is a little bit generalizing I think. He was against diversity that was divisive. And,given that chaos and impunity was s.th Poland could not afford (given its geopolitical position) I believe one should not demonize him for this particular view. With regards to Jewish Poles- one should not forget that this was by no means a monolithic bloc-there were Poles of Jewish faith, orthodox ones who were not integrating into society because they wanted to stay separate (imagine that happening with f.e Latinos in the US-what an uproar that would create), Zionists, who thought their country was not Poland but the soon-to-exist State of Israel, even die-hard communists.To Dmowski, this chaos was not tolerable-he wanted this group (Jews) to be 100% loyal to Poland or to go away.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ///Was not proud-

    Actually, he said: “Wszystko co polskie jest moje” (everything Polish is mine)-the good and the bad. The bad was s.th to be combated. And wasn’t it Lincoln who said: A house divided can not survive?

    ///"For Your Freedom and Ours."

    Yes.And look, where it has gotten us- Poles have fought for this freedom during WW2. As a little thank you we were virtually sold off to the soviets. With the results of their rule we still have to battle (like the lack of real elites). A great number of Poles have risked their lives to help people of Jewish faith- as a thank you Poles are decried as anti-Semites while real anti-Semites are planting real bombs to blow up synagogues in Sweden. Poles and others, like the Baltics, have strived to throw off the soviet yoke-now Solidarity is virtually unknown and tourists flock to Berlin to visit the remains of the Berlin Wall. Poland has helped the US out in Iraq-President Bush even forgot to mention it (“You forgot Poland”). Awesome, indeed. Don’t get me wrong please-these were the right things to do,morally, but other countries have thrown morality out of the window and are way better off for it. Dmowskis point is the following-Morality and goodness is great-but you must be able to afford them first. To put it in todays realities- European solidarity is great- but Poland should not go bankrupt because of it.

    ///Liberty or victory?

    In todays Poland we are “free”- we can, every four years, put a cross on a ballot and throw it into a box.Which is fun, of course. It does not change the power structure-with most of those that are rich today being the descendants of Communist functionaries. We are “free” to leave our country, because there is not much work that can feed a family in Poland. We are “free” to protest against a government that does not care about us. We are “free” to work whenever we want-there are not enough jobs anyway.”Free” to build our own companies-which have no chance against the bigger,richer foreign ones. What great “liberty”, indeed.

    ///let them do so with a full recognition of what he actually represented

    I agree, You have to take the good with the bad. In my view, rejecting someone a 100% because of one very stupid indeed, opinion, is not really fair towards this person. I have stated it once and will do it again-Of not Dmowski, than someone else will be taken to beat Poles into submission. For example the Pope Jan Pawel-Because he was such an “anti-feminist, women-hating bigot” (yes.Someone did indeed tell that to me.An “enlightened” American, btw.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. A lot of good points, Hanna.

    Endek thinking was practical in nature. It never abandoned Poland's committment to diversity. For instance, Dmowski always recognized the fact that Jews can be patriotic Poles.

    Wincenty Lutoslawski, a leading Endek thinker and close friend of Dmowski, openly praised Poland's long tradition of tolerance. To see my review of one of his works, including this detail, please click on my name in this specific posting.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Zygmunt Balicki was another pioneering Endek thinker, and I have just Amazon-reviewed a book about him--a book which includes a selection of his works.

    The question of Polish chauvinism has come up on this blog site. For this reason, it is a matter of general interest, and not only for those interested in Endek thought. To see my detailed review of Balicki, please click on my name in this specific posting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jan, you use the term "Polish chauvinism."

      I wouldn't use that term. To me chauvinism and chauvinism, no matter the nationality of the chauvinist.

      Chauvinists of any ethnicity have much in common with each other.

      Delete

Comments are moderated.
Your comment is more likely to be posted if:
Your comment includes a real first and last name.
Your comment uses Standard English spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
Your comment uses I-statements rather than You-statements.
Your comment states a position based on facts, rather than on ad hominem material.
Your comment includes readily verifiable factual material, rather than speculation that veers wildly away from established facts.
T'he full meaning of your comment is clear to the comment moderator the first time he or she glances over it.
You comment is less likely to be posted if:
You do not include a first and last name.
Your comment is not in Standard English, with enough errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar to make the comment's meaning difficult to discern.
Your comment includes ad hominem statements, or You-statements.
You have previously posted, or attempted to post, in an inappropriate manner.
You keep repeating the same things over and over and over again.