Geoffrey C. Filbert

Ed8

Well-known member
Soul of Ginnungagab,

Perhaps this will help.
Nix comes from the German word nichts, and means 'nothing'.
Here's where it gets difficult, but bear with me please.
There are two zeros. one is the absence of something and can be expressed mathematically as 0/1 (zero divided by one). The other zero is a "never was and never will be and there's nothing to discuss because it has no existence". This is nix. Mathematically 0/0 (zero divided by zero). Occultists sometimes call it Void. But Void is a noun, and these are not nouns. They are verbs; they are actions.

'Not' excludes the item and points to either everything else, or if it is part of a dichotomy, it points to the item's opposite in the dichotomy.
'Un' is the action of removing from visible reality.
'Nix' is the action of unmaking (unmocking) forever across all time. It isn't, and there is not any 'is' ever.
'Nix un' is fun because it unmakes the removal.

I should give the mathematics of the full set of four:
1/1 = an existence
1/0 = infinity, infinite existences
0/1 = "the absence of a presence", and constitutes the presence in reality of an absence of that presence. Guess what lies behind 'loss'?
0/0 = Void, never was or will be because no existence of anything. Aka static.

Hope the above helps,
Ed
 

Chuck J.

"Austere Religious Scholar"
Soul of Ginnungagab,

Perhaps this will help.
Nix comes from the German word nichts, and means 'nothing'.
Here's where it gets difficult, but bear with me please.
There are two zeros. one is the absence of something and can be expressed mathematically as 0/1 (zero divided by one). The other zero is a "never was and never will be and there's nothing to discuss because it has no existence". This is nix. Mathematically 0/0 (zero divided by zero). Occultists sometimes call it Void. But Void is a noun, and these are not nouns. They are verbs; they are actions.

'Not' excludes the item and points to either everything else, or if it is part of a dichotomy, it points to the item's opposite in the dichotomy.
'Un' is the action of removing from visible reality.
'Nix' is the action of unmaking (unmocking) forever across all time. It isn't, and there is not any 'is' ever.
'Nix un' is fun because it unmakes the removal.

I should give the mathematics of the full set of four:
1/1 = an existence
1/0 = infinity, infinite existences
0/1 = "the absence of a presence", and constitutes the presence in reality of an absence of that presence. Guess what lies behind 'loss'?
0/0 = Void, never was or will be because no existence of anything. Aka static.

Hope the above helps,
Ed
The other zero is a "never was and never will be and there's nothing to discuss because it has no existence". This is nix.

'Nix' is the action of unmaking (unmocking) forever across all time. It isn't, and there is not any 'is' ever.



The first statement means something never existed.

The second implies it did exist?
If you're unmocking something (even across all time) if you're unmocking it, that implies it did exist.
 

Ed8

Well-known member
The other zero is a "never was and never will be and there's nothing to discuss because it has no existence". This is nix.

'Nix' is the action of unmaking (unmocking) forever across all time. It isn't, and there is not any 'is' ever.



The first statement means something never existed.

The second implies it did exist?
If you're unmocking something (even across all time) if you're unmocking it, that implies it did exist.
Language is unable to express nix. Treat what I wrote as a pointer to utter non-existence. It never was, and is inexpressibly nothingness. Um, perhaps think of this as as-isness so total that there never was anything to as-is, and even as-isness did not occur because the as-ising was as-ised too.
(sigh) Language fails. Look where I point.
:)
Ed
 
Language is unable to express nix. Treat what I wrote as a pointer to utter non-existence. It never was, and is inexpressibly nothingness. Um, perhaps think of this as as-isness so total that there never was anything to as-is, and even as-isness did not occur because the as-ising was as-ised too.
(sigh) Language fails. Look where I point.
:)
Ed
This reminds me of something Filbert wrote regarding the axioms:

Quote from Excalibur Revisited, the chapter Corrections to the Axioms & Logics

It should be understood that all of these axioms only apply to the lower 6 dynamics, and their
apparency. They are how things look within the game of the physical universe. They do not apply to the upper dynamics, or Life there.
 

Chuck J.

"Austere Religious Scholar"
Language is unable to express nix. Treat what I wrote as a pointer to utter non-existence. It never was, and is inexpressibly nothingness. Um, perhaps think of this as as-isness so total that there never was anything to as-is, and even as-isness did not occur because the as-ising was as-ised too.
(sigh) Language fails. Look where I point.
:)
Ed
I'm gonna take that apart.

I think language expresses nix just fine. Non-existence. OK, got it. Didn't exist, never has existed.
Perhaps never will exist.
In this time stream just something that was never called into existence, which I'm sure, even with the overflowing panoply of created existences's here, there is PLENTY that has not and never will be created.
Nix.
OK got it.

But....
As-isness?

I think your referring to Axiom 12.
(from memory) The primary condition of any universe is that two spaces, energies or objects must not exist in the same space. When this condition is violated, (perfect duplicate) the apparency of any universe or part thereof is nulled.

"Um, perhaps think of this as as-isness so total that there never was anything to as-is,..."
OK, something that never existed.

".... and even as-isness did not occur because the as-ising was as-ised too."
That doesn't make much sense to me.
Well, I can tell you from this life experience that when you as-is something.... it's gone. It's gone for everyone else too. I've experienced it.
There is no need to as-is yourself as-is-ing it. Your always going to know (knowingness) you vanished it.
Unless you forget. But it still happened.

I think this Nix concept is quite simple.
I mean you can as-is the as-isness ad-infinitum, ".... and even as-isness did not occur because the as-ising was as-ised too."

...but either it existed or it didn't.
Yeah, in this case it's very Aristotelian, lol.
 

Watchful Navigator

(Scott Gordon)
Hiya Is-Be. No, those lectures are not available to the public. Filbert was on that project, and he remembers it as 65-66 BUT I know a Class VIII who was doing his course at that time and he neither saw or knew of it. I can only assume that Filbert's memory of the exact year was faulty, which wouldn't be the first time. The St Hill Staff Course of 63-64 is the only likely time that something was done about Clear out of the purview of the general public. It's only a theory, but I believe it's a strong one considering the R6 material on dichotomies was already well known in 1963. Also refer to the PDF file entitled SuperTech1963 which has all this stuff in it.

The Jack Horner article doesn't change my opinion, since Hubbard's GPM research was attempting to open the OT case, beyond Clear.
Regarding Filbert's memory. This had perplexed me for a long time, since Geoffrey told a story of Hubbard being "taken out" and "replaced" around Christmas 1965 (story shared in private by Arnie Lerma to his friends in the past, but also appeared either in Geoffrey's book or again, in our interview). I had the opportunity to sit down with him for 4 1/2 hours in July 2019 and do a long interview* with him (I have assembled all my notes into a series of reports). I found him to be a friendly gentleman who quickly warmed up to me as a stranger (though invited over the phone) at his door.

(*if it is appropriate, I would be happy to share the interview file here, or send it to any who are interested and contact me [email protected] - it is not for open, public publishing, but for curious and interested individuals)

[Please note that I have great trouble believing Hubbard was ever "replaced" - since it's the same Hubbard we all know, love and/or hate, throughout. But Geoffrey has sworn affidavits to more than one court, with attached evidence of body doubles using various bank accounts, different signatures and handwriting, and other details. This part I can believe, though if Geoffrey saw the "real LRH" slumped over and carted away from his office (Geoffrey claimed a top-secret security clearance which matches his parents' diplomatic status and his entry onto a "gifted" program as a child prodigy in the Corpus Christi area) - then I believe this to have been staged to confuse and/or leave an impression on the young Filbert (did you know he was only 19 or so when he arrived at Saint Hill, already having been extensively audited and "grooved in" and even briefed, he says, by former President Harry Truman to "get in there and give Hubbard a hand with this project!").]

During the course of the interview, I tried to straighten out the dates he was giving for the 1964-1965 period. As we were having a great interview with high ARC, and I knew in the back of my mind about the actual implanting done by MK-Ultra on "gifted children" and that Geoffrey had been Army intelligence, already having the top-secret clearance, I did not push too hard and did not want to disturb his case. It was when I asked specifically if this incident (Hubbard being carried out in a body bag) occurred before or after the writing of KSW #1 (and subsequent mass exodus of students and overhaul of the subject) and he replied that for sure it was before - while the "real" Hubbard was still the main guy and alive. At this point, I cautiously quizzed him on the date of KSW, pointing out that it was February 7, 1965 (I have come to memorize that fateful date). He frowned and said, "No, I'm pretty sure KSW was 1966..." I gently persisted (just one time), that we clear that up, gently insisting it was 1965. He said his materials were away in another room. Obviously to me at the time, it would have been uncomfortable for him to have a stranger waiting for him in his living room, unsupervised, so I did not press further, and we dropped the subject. He only added that his passport stamp "proved" that he'd gone to Saint Hill in 1965.

Yet he also tells of studying and assisting in the pilot of at least, the Clearing Course (but also GPM research and I think, R6EW). He also said he was there at Saint Hill for quite a while before KSW was even written and issued. This places him on Saint Hill course as early as mid-1964.

I believe he has been subjected to some serious gaslighting (like an altered passport stamp, etc.) as part of whatever role "they" had for him. Possibly even implanted on a regular basis to maintain some measure of control, since he knew much (he says he is one of the few to ever have read Hubbard's CIA file which to this day is still not able to be accessed by FOIA request).

I'm not too shabby reading body language. I found Geoffrey to be sincere and personable, and I don't believe he was pulling my leg. I do think that some of the things he witnessed were in the "they'll never believe it" category of things that government-protected monopolies get away with. There's more of that in my report, but I also want to point out that when I went back to re-read parts of his book, I found many of the same stories already told there (plus a few that weren't). What I got out of that was the "being there, in-person," that gave me a sense of his sincerity in relating what would be considered pretty wild tales - even for those who were deep in the Scientology onion.

I didn't come here to spread rumor and conspiracy theory, but rather to help clear it up. All this stuff is already publicly available in his book, "Excalibur Revisited" - and most people never get that far into it for the jaw-dropping allegations about Hubbard's criminal mafia. I don't believe all of what he told me, but I do believe he believed, and not out of delusion.

I consider Geoffrey Filbert a friend and mentor, and, although we fell out of communication, I deeply appreciate his granting me such a personal interview - that he has repeatedly stated he will not grant the media or anyone else. I just happened to be, in my travels, at the right place at the right time, and will forever cherish this stroke of good fortune. He did not ask that I not share what we discussed, but neither did I get his permission to do so, since it was never my intent to make any article or press out of it. But I do feel it can be shared privately, for historical purposes, to any who inquire and who agree to respect that.

-Scott Gordon
Watchful Navigator
 
Last edited:

Reyne Mayer

Pansexual Revolutionary
Geoffrey had been Army intelligence, already having the top-secret clearance
got any proof for that? i can't even find a biography for him.

it sounds like he could have been almost a clone of Hubbard, a fabulist who made up an exceptional childhood he didn't have and a military intelligence career that didn't exist, adjudged 'virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history' and classified as a 'mental case' to professionals -- and yet could be very engaging, convincing, and relatively normal seeing in interactions with followers, and able to contrive and write theories that managed to somehow engage a lot of people.

one thing about such psychopaths is that they are very good at convincing many people, often managing to appear as more reliable than average to many people, when in fact they are the least trustworthy. that's an important part of why they manage to pull off what they do, and pull the wool over the eyes of so many.

are you certain Filbert wasn't just another Hubbard?
 
Last edited:

pineapple

知道的人不说,和说的人不知道。
got any proof for that? i can't even find a biography for him.

it sounds like he could have been almost a clone of Hubbard, a fabulist who made up an exceptional childhood he didn't have and a military intelligence career that didn't exist, adjudged 'virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history' and classified as a 'mental case' to professionals -- and yet could be very engaging, convincing, and relatively normal seeing in interactions with followers, and able to contrive and write theories that managed to somehow engage a lot of people.

one thing about such psychopaths is that they are very good at convincing many people, often managing to appear as more reliable than average to many people, when in fact they are the least trustworthy. that's an important part of why they manage to pull off what they do, and pull the wool over the eyes of so many.

are you certain Filbert wasn't just another Hubbard?
I'd put him more in the same bag as Cap'n Bill.

Both were people who felt that scn had gone wrong, but still believed in the tech, and wanted to "use scn to save scn." With Hubbard there was certainly an ulterior motive, from the beginning: to gratify his "insatiable lust for money and power"; I don't see that with Filbert or Captain Bill. I think they were actually sincere (albeit nuts).

This is the first I've heard of Filbert believing that Hubbard was "replaced" in 1965. (I've read only parts of Excalibur Revisited. Does he mention it there? If so I missed it.) Again, there's a parallel with Captain Bill, who believed Hubbard -- whose thetan name was Elron Elray -- had ascended to the Mother Ship and been replaced by a Marcabian.

The basis of this delusion was his reverence for Hubbard. When he saw scn failing he couldn't believe Hubbard would allow this. So the real Hubbard must not be in charge anymore. It must be (gasp!) an imposter!

If you were in scn while Hubbard was still alive, how often did you hear someone say, or think to yourself, "If Ron knew about this he'd never allow it."?

There is a name for the psychological disorder where you believe your loved ones have been replaced by imposters: Capgras syndrome.

(Note that I was never a follower of either Cap'n Bill or Filbert, and this is just my take based on reading.)
 
Last edited:
Top