The interest in Bulgaria because of the unique Referendum for a new nuclear plant in this country has been expanding since the nuclear energy and Belene (obviously not very wise) project is one of the final crowns of the communist regime in this country. It may have negative consequences and creates an intrigue (as weak as the communists are today in structures outside mafias), instead uniting the nation which is spread all over the world.
Most surprisely, the Facebook blog Archaeological and Anthropological Grant Opportunity is not only closed but even does not respond to request to become a member. Recently, there were shown weird photos from a meeting of Archaeological Institute of America where Bulgarian grantees of America for Bulgaria Foundation (connected with The Field Museum in Chicago) were looking like first year students instead top specialists who really desire grants. There are still missing any reports of these grantees hosted by The Field Museum in Chicago. By the way, it was distributed information about Bulgaria mafia in Chicago described in a special book. So, what is coming from Chicago is most important for all the world. In past there were signatures gathered to have supported a person who was a communist spy to stay at his position in the Bulgarian Consulate in Chicago. Briefly, Bulgarian nation has been developing as the Italian – with humanistic core and all sorts of mafias which trouble humanity. Bulgarian nation has become a nation of true values and corrupted/criminal values, of honest and dishonest persons, of committed to humanity and of sociopathic type including even psychotronic terrorists.
The picture becomes really dark when one opens the website of Dilyana Ivanova who according to The Field Museum in Chicago, works even as an administrative assistant at the Anthropological Department there. The Field Museum in Chicago announces that this person has research areas archaeology and ethnography although the education of Dilyana Ivanova does not include archaeology. At the same time she is an administrative assistant in Anthropological department for which position she does not have either anthropology or administrative business qualification.
Dilyana Ivanova, obviously well paid by America for Bulgaria Foundation, even defended a dissertation in Bulgaria in December 2012 which title is shocking: “Biographic Narratives of Everyday Life in a Socialist Town: A Case Study of Rousse, Bulgaria." Is it possible one to believe that such dissertation would be written from a position in The Field Museum? How does this dissertation relate to archaeology and the granted program? Is this really a topic for dissertation in a moment when all the world has been suffering from the consequences of the terrifying communist regimes in Eastern Europe and everybody is waiting this terrifying past to be undressed and not masked by pseudoscholarly themes? How does the topic of this dissertation relate to The Field Museum?
Socialism and socialistic are artificial terms from the communist totalitarian regimes, respectively socialist town is not a scholarly term from early 21st century. The Bulgarian towns from 1944-1989 were towns under communism, towns of terrifying totalitarian communist regimes. The western democracy clearly knew the truth and allowed the people to find their new homeland in their countries. At once, it occurs that some people from the same western countries today have been hosting people and giving work to Bulgarians who have been trying to challenge the most terrifying regimes in human history and to write in style of the communist regime scholars.
Substitution of scholarly values is typical of the communists and their descendants socialists in Bulgaria. Two days ago Sergej Stanishev claimed victory during the Referendum when in fact less that 21% percent of Bulgarians voted and abt 60% of them supported the project. However, it was victory for Sergej Stanishev. In the same way in early 21st century Dilyana Ivanova from a position in The Field Museum has been writing a dissertation about the so-called socialist town in Bulgaria. The Field Museum published even a sort of abstract of her PhD dissertation. This is a peace of pseudo-scholarly rhetoric that sounds as a tragedy since touches a destiny of whole nation. Let me just recall that the so-called dissertation defended in Bulgaria has a theme one of the most terrifying regimes in human history – the communist regime.
According to the text published on the website of the Field Museum:
1. “The work explores narratives containing memories of everyday life in Rousse during socialism, and it creates an oral history profile of the town during the same period”.
Comment: Does anybody understand what is the dissertation about? This text consists of gathered words without any specific meaning. It can be written for any town in the world. On the top of everything this text, coming from The Field Museum, is a scandal since “Rousse during socialism” is a non-historical approach – socialism was used by the communists to cover their totalitarian regimes; there was no socialism in Bulgaria but a totalitarian regime of the communists which was named socialism without having such. Then, the life in 1944-1989 is not during socialism (such did not exist) but under communism or during the totalitarian communist regime.
2. “The analysis is focused not so much on the historical details about the town as on the anthropological categories through which Rousse is described in the oral narratives of the residents.” Comment: Dilyama Ivanova does not have anthropological education (neither historical according her web bio), which is very obvious. Again only words without any specific meaning. Most terrifying – from her position at The Field Museum she has been writing as an author who writes about Cuba in the 1990s which is by the way typical of many Bulgarian pseudoscholars who received their tittle not because of their abilities and works but because of the system – mechanical replications.
3. “The study of socialist everyday life in the Rousse narratives demonstrates the realization of postmodern disintegration, decentralization, and pluralism of the Great History (by Nora) of Bulgarian post-socialist society”. Comment: Again a collection of words without any specific meaning regarding Rouse case study.
4. “It brings together different life experiences and assessments of the past and achieves a synthesis of the epoch, and it also challenges the poles of acceptance or rejection of the socialist past”. Comment: Where is the study that shows that there is evidence to challenge most terrifying regime in human history? Is it possible to challenge Nazism? Above all, there is no single thought that shows an author who really understands history, who really has something new and important to say based on Rousse case study and shows really that desires a grant to have a position in the Field Museum in Chicago. There is a deep post-communist crisis in Bulgarian education, but who can expect that The Field Museum will open doors for not qualified person who in early 21st century has been writing about “socialist period” in Bulgaria – a country with one of the strongest totalitarian communist regimes in Eastern Europe. Many have been still believing Bulgaria was part of the Soviet Union.
Nothing in the abstract of Dilyana Ivanova shows a specialist and even elementary knowledge on history and anthropology. Unfortunately, the scholarly titles are absolutely corrupted in Bulgaria and the fact that this America for Bulgaria Foundation grantee with an administrative position at The Field Museum used the grant to defend PhD in Bulgaria only shows that the grant was given neither for obtaining education from the Field Museum nor for real research on Bulgaria. It seems more correctly to think that the institution of The Field Museum and America (later also Archaeological Institute of America) have been using for covering of the communists totalitarian past with a new layer of mythological narratives and for embedding in science of a person who will have the right to choose and select others for science based on pseudo-values. This absurd can be named today ideology and social practices of the absurd. Such behavior has become a standard for a specific type of Bulgarian women which do not have solid education (as the text of Dilyana Ivanova shows) and has been using science for non-scientific goals.
Last but not least: the Field Museum has also published on its website the goals of Archaeological & Anthropological Grant Opportunities. Nothing from the dissertation of Dolyana Ivanova shows that this theme fits the goals the program (see below). She looks like communist spy Bozhidar Dimitriv who used his scholarly title to have entered Vatican – in this case it seems one program was offered just for dark goals the communist regimes to be mythologized from America and to be prevented the truth to come out by using an institution with a sort of authority. If there is really humanity and control, Dolyana Ivanova should return all obtained funds to the America for Bulgaria Foundation since her dissertation does not fit the main goals of the program. Below are the goals according to the website of The Field Museum:
The America for Bulgaria Foundation (ABF) Archaeological & Anthropological Program is a collaborative effort between the Department of Anthropology at The Field Museum (FM), Chicago, IL, and the American Research Center in Sofia (ARCS), Bulgaria. It was initiated with individual grants to The Field Museum and American Research Center in Sofia in the spring of 2009. The program develops collaborative research opportunities to preserve and restore archaeological and cultural heritage sites; to enhance archaeological and historical museums in Bulgaria, and to promote local and international tourism in Bulgaria. The program relates directly to the America for Bulgaria Foundation mission to advance archaeological and anthropological research in southeastern Europe by strengthening US-Bulgarian relations and developing museums, archaeological, and cultural heritage sites for tourism.