A Union Made in Hell: Virtue-Signalling Woke 'Research' in Austro-Covidistan
A cautionary tale about scientific 'truthiness', arrogance, and the troublesome notion of evidence, all wrapped into one historian's talk about 'vaccine hesitancy'
Today’s Boxing Day posting is a translated version of a piece I wrote for ‘my’ German-language hang-out, tkp.at (h/t to my colleagues Thomas and Peter F. Mayer). Originally posted over at, here’s some crucial background on this particular item.
To give credit where credit is due, long-time reader ‘Witzbold’ pointed me towards an open letter by one Ortwin Rosner (who’ll appear further below):
My friend Thomas Oysmüller already knew all about it—which is why we co-wrote the below piece, which went live on the day of the Winter Solstice (21 Dec.); the translation and all emphases are mine, as are the conventional bottom lines below.
Anti-Vaxxers as ‘Traitors to the People’—Kulturkampf instead of Research at the Austrian Academy of Sciences
Questionable ‘research’ is currently taking place at the venerable Academy of Sciences (ÖAW) these days. On 24 Nov. 2022, historian Dr. Martin Tschiggerl spoke at the Jour fixe of the Institute for Culture Studies and Theatre History about his current Habilitation project on the topic of ‘Vaccination Opposition and Conspiracy Theories’. What at first glance looks like a rather brittle, almost everyday part of academic life, however, quickly drew wide circles. A debate contribution to the current topic ‘Us and Corona’.
‘From “alternative” thinking to “lateral” thinking’ [Querdenken].
This was the title of Martin Tschiggerl’s talk, which took place at the end of November on the premises of the ÖAW in Vienna’s city centre. According to the announcement, he presented a ‘workshop report of his ongoing habilitation project on the German-language anti-vaccination movement’. Covering the period from the 19th century to the present, Tschiggerl points out ‘how strongly the radical rejection of vaccination is linked with a high affinity to conspiracy theories and a fundamental hostility to science. At the centre of this are above all anti-Semitic conspiracy narratives in alternative medical milieus.’
In addition to the already tendentious and questionable framing (which is not uncommon, if not the norm, in everyday university life), the interweaving of various spatial, social, and thematic aspects immediately stands out. References to the extent to which the ‘German-speaking anti-vaccination movement’ should at least be divided into pre-1918/19 and post-1918/19 remain unmentioned, while, in a bout of seemingly Germano-centrism, nuances that have always been emphasised by Eastern European Studies are immediately visible: apparently the other ‘Eastern’ nationalities, ethnic groups and peoples of Austria-Hungary play no role in Tschiggerl’s considerations.
Now, this may be dismissed out of hand as a professional complaint, but at this point we should point out the at least twofold research problem that may apply to almost all works on the history of Central Europe: the overwhelming focus on the undisputed centre of Vienna as well as the extensive ignoring of any non-German-speaking positions (e.g., the Czechs, Hungarians, South Slavs, Poles, etc.). The announcement of the lecture at least indicates that this is also how Tschiggerl handles things.
‘From Life-Reform to Lateral Thinking’
Further indications of this quite peculiar approach can also be found in an ‘interview’ with Martin Tschiggerl, which was published online by the ÖAW on the same day (24 Nov. 2022). In addition to the dubious illustration—a stock photograph is used in which a banner with the inscription ‘The Earth is Flat’ can be seen, which has hardly any relevance to the topic beyond disreputable associations—one can read the following remarks on the topical title ‘From Life-Reform to Lateral Thinking’, that ‘the current lateral thinkers’ movement…is decidedly heterogeneous’. What unites them, according to Tschiggerl, ‘is the rejection of the Covid-19 vaccinations as well as the anti-Corona measures’.
The inference made in the first paragraph is that the opponents of the Covid-19 mandates include ‘identitarians’, and Tschiggerl seeks to explain it as follows:
Q: What is the historical tradition of the opponents of vaccination?
Tschiggerl: Historical parallels can be found with movements that emerged in the 19th century, such as the life-reform movement. There, too, there was strong resistance to what they called ‘orthodox medicine’. In my Habilitation project, which I have just begun, I trace its historical development, how these lines have developed in the German-speaking countries through the 20th century up to the present. For: a large part of the so-called ‘lateral thinking’ movement is based on ideas and positions from this milieu. And: a good part of these movements were openly anti-Semitic in the past.
One of Tschiggerl’s ‘central hypotheses’ [sic] is the role of anti-Semitism within these groups loosely grouped together as ‘vaccination opponents’. According to Tschiggerl, there were ‘similar movements in Great Britain, France and the USA, but this open anti-Semitism is mainly found in Austria and Germany’. Nevertheless, ‘anti-Semitism is not a uniquely German-language feature’, as illustrated by the ‘QAnon’ conspiracy theory, which originated in the USA.
Vaccination, Lies, and Evidence
The Nazi period also appears, but according to Tschiggerl it cannot be clearly classified due to its ‘ambivalences’ (as there was a strong push to abolish vaccinations vs. an insistence on ‘public hygiene’ to preserve the Germans’ ‘Wehrkraft’, i.e., their military prowess and readiness). This contradiction seemingly doesn’t bother Tschiggerl—or the interviewer (who remains unnamed) who at one point states that Tschiggerl refers to ‘anti-Semitism as the archetype of a conspiracy narrative’ (my emphasis):
In the argumentation of many conspiracy narratives, a secret agenda is pursued by the Jewish population. Depending on the time and the point of view from which this conspiracy myth is told, it is either a conspiracy from below, i.e., ‘the Jews’ are trying to usurp world power through vaccinations; or a conspiracy theory from above, according to which ‘the Jews’ already rule the world and want to secure their world domination through vaccinations.
Tschiggerl does indeed refer to spatial and/or temporal factors, but whenever these qualifiers appear, they are treated with a fair amount of condescension coupled with considerable amounts of virtue-signalling:
[Q] Is every anti-vaccinationist necessarily a conspiracy theorist?
Tschiggerl: Not necessarily. It depends on how this opposition to vaccination is articulated. Even in the 19th century, there were two large camps: on the one hand, the more liberal thinkers, who did not reject vaccinations in principle, but spoke out against compulsory vaccination, i.e., specifically against the [German] Vaccination Act of 1874.
[Q] And on the other side?
Tschiggerl: Where vaccination is rejected outright, conspiracy theories dominate. Those who claim that vaccinations do not work are opposing scientific findings and countless studies and meta-studies that prove the opposite. You can only make such claims, if you believe in a vast conspiracy that all study results are falsified and that both doctors and politicians are lying or being lied to.
Two common propaganda mechanisms can be observed here, which are rather clumsily interwoven: on the one hand, ‘lying by omission’, which is true in the case of the cited reference to the German Vaccination Act of 8 April 1874 (No. 11, pp. 31-34): on the one hand, it is about the smallpox vaccination, whereby ‘even’ the German-language Wikipedia entry on this states so (accessed 19 Dec. 2022); note the telling discrepancy to the actual text of the law—which, moreover, is linked on the same Wikipedia page (further link to the original source). The discrepancy is visible upon first glance:
Translation of the highlighted passage in the section ‘Inhalt des Gesetzes’ (stipulations of the act):
The Vaccination Act mandated compulsory vaccination for all children during their second year of life and re-vaccination at the age of 12. Exemption from compulsory vaccination was possible with a medical certificate. A child may only attend school upon presentation of a vaccination certificate. For adults, the vaccination certificate had to be presented, e.g., when getting married or changing residence. The penalties for parents and guardians who did not comply with the compulsory vaccination obligations were fines of up to fifty marks or imprisonment of up to three days.
Highlighted section from the original source (note the differences):
§ 1: mandatory vaccination against smallpox applies to 1) all children…except to those who are able to present (pursuant to § 10) medical proof of survived infection [i.e., natural immunity, which back in 1874 was apparently deemed ‘good enough’ to forego mandatory vaccination]
On the other hand, Tschiggerl’s claim that the 1874 Vaccination Act positioned ‘the more liberal-minded’ against those who ‘reject vaccination outright’ may be classified as ‘lying by commission’—for what Tschiggerl is quite obviously concealing is this: the compulsory vaccination against smallpox, which the 1874 Vaccination Act established, had in fact been maintained in its essence unchanged across all the ruptures of 20th century German history. ‘Even’ the German Wikipedia refers to this: not only does the entry already cited contain references to its failed abolition in 1933/34 (by the Nazi regime, by the way, a crucial information Tschiggerl fails to mention), but the Vaccination Law of 1874 was kept on the books in both West and East Germany under slightly different titles (‘Vaccination Law’); incidentally, it should be mentioned that East Germany abolished compulsory smallpox vaccination in 1966, West Germany in 1983 (incidentally, the World Health Organization had declared smallpox ‘eradicated’ in 1980).
Perverse Views of a Cultural Studies Scholar (sic)
Beyond these regrettable professional and technical inaccuracies, however, there is another fact that is probably more questionable in view of the subject matter. Asked what ‘characterises conspiracy theories’, Tschiggerl answered as follows (my emphasis):
Tschiggerl: One of the central characteristics of conspiracy theories is the belief that an evil group operates in the dark, in the background, that keeps true knowledge secret, falsifies, lies, and deceives in order to achieve a certain goal. In short: as soon as there is a belief in a conspiracy and this is used to establish causalities where none would be discernible without an imagined conspiracy, it is a conspiracy theory. In addition, there is a world view that thinks very strongly in terms of good and evil. Narratives that try to reduce complexity and provide simple explanations.
[Q] When did the current vaccination movement become a social problem?
Tschiggerl: As we know, there has been a radicalisation during the pandemic. While certain groups on social media were still diverse and critical at the beginning, they very quickly became radicalised. This happened, among other things, through astroturfing campaigns, i.e., targeted fake accounts, whereby more radical content found more and more approval. This manipulated the dynamics in the forums and radicalised people. With Trump at the latest, conspiracy theory has returned to politics as a legitimate tool. The pandemic has amplified this further. This is dangerous for our basic democratic consensus [Grundkonsens, note that this particular term and meaning has its origins in Communist East Germany, but it’s quite readily invoked by the woke-infested radical leftists].
It would now be quite easy to subject these statements by Tschiggerl to a similarly scrutinising analysis, whereby, in view of what has been said, a decidedly crude form of ‘projection’ most likely applies (which ultimately accuses the other side of actually implementing their own actions). Furthermore, chronological reservations must be made, since the reference to Donald Trump, who took office in 2017, is introduced with ‘at the latest’; needless to say, 2017 occurred before 2020. Making such a wild statement may only seem credible in those circles that consider Mr. Trump the incarnation of Evil (which, while a different debate, is a conversation we should definitely have in comparison to his predecessors and successors).
Tschiggerl, however, omitted all these ‘details’ in the aforementioned interview; as it appears, his talk on 24 Nov. 2022 did nothing to fill these gaps with the corresponding references.
Dr Tschiggerl Speaks—but Doesn’t Remain Opposed
Such opposing statements came from the philosopher and German Studies scholar Ortwin Rosner two weeks ago. He had attended the talk in question together with the science theorist and writer Jan David Zimmermann. In mid-December, he then published an Open Letter to the Austrian Academy of Sciences entitled, ‘Appeal against the misuse of science for political agitation: On the activities of the ÖAW staff member Martin Tschiggerl’.
The talk had left him with ‘great concern and alarm’, for it had not an ‘isolated case’, rather the latest manifestation of
an increasingly pervasive tendency to engage in political agitation under the guise of science. It is always characteristic of the actions of the protagonists in charge that, on the one hand, they make an absolute scientific claim that their own views are true while anyone who holds a different view is characterised as an ‘enemy of science’; at the same time, they themselves do not adhere to even the bare minimum standards of scientific integrity.
According to Rosner, Tschiggerl’s talk was ‘for the most part’ a ‘clumsy, superficial, and uncritical summary of what legacy media and tabloid outlets have claimed about vaccine hesitancy in the past 2-3 years; furthermore, he presents the clichés spread by columnists and journalists alike as incontrovertible “scientific facts” without need for any further verification.’ Tschiggerl had tried to cover up his lack of arguments with PowerPoint slides and activism. Rosner’s judgement: such ‘open and shameless recourse to populist journalist rhetoric’ is quite ‘unacceptable in any academic endeavour’.
Tschiggerl had completely ignored the fact that Covid was (is) a complex issue, where ‘there are different views on the danger of the virus, on the effectiveness of the measures and on the usefulness and risk of vaccination’. Instead, Tschiggerl spoke of the ‘bizarre’ concept of ‘illegitimate knowledge’ in order to ‘brand’ positions that were ‘not acceptable’.
For Rosner, however, it was rather Tschiggerl’s ‘habitus’ that was ‘illegitimate’, in particular
that here a historian tries to appear as the arbiter of conclusive medical truth and, with an attitude of anarchic self-empowerment, labels everyone who has a different opinion than he does as a ‘science denier’. Such a thing is, of course, completely unacceptable. One may ask what someone who acts in this way is doing at an academic institution.
The ‘setting’ of the lecture was also telling, for critical observations and questions had been declared ‘not wanted’ from the get-go. This was made clear by the moderator of the evening, the deputy director of the Institute, Dr. Ljiljana Radonić.
In conclusion, Rosner states in his letter, which is worth quoting in full:
Whenever someone appears and claims that he himself has the absolute truth and that anyone who contradicts him is a ‘Schwurbler’ [this derogatory term has come into use by Austro-Covidian legacy media to denote all critics of Covid mandates and policies; it translates roughly into something like ‘purveyor of ill-founded empty phrases’], an ‘enemy of science’ [Wissenschaftsfeind], or a ‘science denier’ [Wissenschaftsleugner]—such an appearance is merely an authoritarian presumption and has nothing at all to do with science. That is not how science works. At best, this is how revelatory religious work.
I find it hard not to agree with this observation.
Especially when considering Martin Tschiggerl’s Twitter account (which you can find under the handle @eltschiggolo) where, among other things, many statements of questionable linguistic and rhetoric nature may be found.
TKP had asked both Tschiggerl and the Austrian Academy of Sciences for a statement, in particular to clarify formulations used by Tschiggerl, such as ‘Schwurbler’, ‘illegitimate knowledge’, and ‘conspiracy theory’. Neither answered TKP, and the Academy of Sciences also did not respond to Rosner’s Open Letter.
Epilogue: When Clowns Engage in Debates
There was, however, a response by Tschiggerl, albeit only ‘on the internet’, specifically, on Twitter. As mentioned, he hangs out there under the handle ‘eltschiggolo’, which is hilariously telling (as it pertains to, among others, a ‘male escort’, according to Merriam-Webster; I find this particularly apt…). Although a first impression certainly indicates Tschiggerl’s Twitter postings are a kind of ‘stream of consciousness’, albeit at very low levels, it also shows that Tschiggerl has ‘curated’ or deleted some of his more patently tweets in recent days.
Tschiggerl’s profile picture looked like this on 18 Dec. 2022 (when this and the following screenshot were taken):
Since then [Oysmüller’s and my article was published on 21 Dec.], Tschiggerl has replaced the highlighted sentence with ‘I don’t play pigeon chess [Taubenschach] as a matter of principle’, by which he possibly means that he doesn’t argue with deaf people. Or whatever.
In addition to this attempt to ‘adapt’ the past, Tschiggerl also uses a tactic reminiscent of George Orwell to make certain statements ‘disappear’; Tschiggerl originally posted the below tweet on 2 Dec. 2022, but it has ‘disappeared’ in the meantime. He is alluding to the current tasteless Viennese vaccination campaign with ‘Boosta the Syringe’. He finds this campaign ‘great’:
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
No scientist may demand anything with reagrds to criticism of any hypothesis or theory.
Anyone feeling that criticism, analysis, counter-arguments, pro-et-contra debates, and general skepsis is a crime against science, is conflating Abrahamic religion or ideology with science.
(And the functional difference between religion and ideology is zero, whether the-ism or creed in question is seen as having intrinsic value or intrumental value.)
What this freak fails to recognized is people basically want to be natural. People, understand any/all injections will make a freak like him, I suggest autophagy every day to purge these poisons.