On the Virtue of Lying


There is this popular Polish criminal comedy titled Vabank. And there is a scene where one naive guy comes to a bank administered by a group of swindlers. They advise him to open up a bank account under a fake name in order to avoid paying taxes. The man, greedy and gullible as he is, gets lured into a trap. Later on he can’t get his money back. The whole movie is about deception, con-artists fighting each other and using dirty tricks often as a revenge.

Some deceivers are natural born predators and their lies are ominous. Just recently, something that looked like a genuine bank has turned out to be a financial pyramid. Thousands of people have lost money, often all their life savings. The pair of swindlers preyed not only on people’s gullibility but also their greed, promising them high profits from investing their money into gold. It turned out that the profits people saw on paper were non-existent; fata morgana. The swindlers were finally exposed and caught but they managed to transfer some of the money abroad, to some exotic countries, and squander the rest. The victims received only a small portion of “invested” money back. The rest was irrevocably lost.

Now this is what could be called sinister shenanigans. Something truly diabolical. Something different from posting some stupid shit on WordPress blog and calling it a test or inviting some jackasses to coffee and doughnuts party and not turning up.

Is deception a Satanic virtue as some “sinister” types say? I guess it’s so human. Everyone is a liar. We all lie, sometimes even unconsciously, to others and to ourselves. Sometimes lying is accompanied by good intentions. Your friend asks you: “How do I look like in my new dress?” You know she looks terrible but you don’t want to hurt her so you lie and tell her she looks great. If some “sinister” propagandist keeps bashing Anton LaVey saying he was against lying, then what bullshit is that? That person ignores everything that was written by LaVey about the Lesser Magic, which is nothing else than manipulation. What does it mean “responsibility to the responsible?” Does it mean that willful deception should be rejected because it’s immoral?

Every idiot can lie but when does deception become an art? Like an illusionist enchanting the unaware audience with its “magic” tricks, lying is an art until it becomes exposed. Deception is a diabolical art as long as nobody knows or suspects they are being deceived. If the audience sees through the illusionist’s tricks, then he’s a poor magician indeed. That means that if you are going to lie, then do that properly. So that nobody knows that or even suspects that you are lying.

But what happens if you are caught lying? When does responsibility come into the picture? If you are caught lying once, twice or three times, then you lose credibility. That means that everything you say and do becomes red-flagged. Once the reputation of a deceiver sticks to you and people become aware of your lies, then they will no longer believe you even if you tell the truth for a change. Like playing cards, you can cheat as long as others at the table don’t know you are cheating. Because if they know, then the game is over.

Once I went to one of the local shops which I regularly frequent and was so lost in my thoughts, or tired perhaps, that I forgot to take the change. Then the shop-keeper shouted after me: Hey Miss you forgot your money! Damn, I was grateful to her. But why did she do that? She cold have kept the money. Is this because she liked me? Because she was kind and honest by nature? Perhaps. But perhaps, she simply wanted me to keep coming to her shop. She wanted people to think she is honest, that she is kind. She was building customer trust and loyalty so that people will chose her shop and not competition.

There is a proverb: A lie has short legs. It can be no problem for a skillful swindler to build some financial pyramid, dupe as many people as possible in relatively short time and then take the money and flee abroad and hide far away before the people realize they have been duped and the cops catch him. But if your aim is to set up a business or whatever venture that is going to last for decades, then credibility is something very important.

That eventually brings us to those “mischievous” and super-evil, and super duper “misleading” and “deceitful” and “sly” ONA WordPressers who post crap after crap on their blogs and call it “the Satanic Art of Deception.” But for fuck’s sake, how can that be an art if even an average idiot knows it’s deception? Who the hell are they fooling if everyone already knows they are being fooled? What is the worth of the bullshit if everyone knows it’s fucking bullshit? Are they masters of Satanic deception? No, fuck, no. They are simply bullshitters who failed their own sinister bullshit test.

The next thing those amateur manipulators say is: “I don’t give a damn about having the respect of strangers.” That’s too bad because respect is often accompanied with awe. People will more easily bend to your Will if they respect you. Unless you can put a gun to their heads, then it’s always better to have their respect than not even be taken seriously by them. If one has an aim to influence people in one way or another, then it’s hard, if not impossible, to do it once you have a reputation of a bullshitter and all your ideas get red-flagged. They will be simply rejected, simple as that.

4 thoughts on “On the Virtue of Lying

  1. 39yvr2pmq says:

    You wrote:
    {quote} post crap after crap… how can that be an art if even an average idiot knows it’s deception? […] They are simply bullshitters who failed their own sinister bullshit test […] People will more easily bend to your Will if they respect you […] {/quote}

    So many assumptions, and resorting, again, to argumentum ad nauseam and argumentum ad hominem.

    1) If it is all ‘crap’ then why are you – and others – responding to it again and again and again? Most often with argumentum ad nauseam (about the O9A, and the SP blog) and argumentum ad hominem (about those you believe are writing BS).

    One of the aims of SP posts is to provoke a reaction. Since you et al keep responding, and never ever seem to answer questions asked, what does that imply?

    Other aims (as mentioned on the About page) include “to interest, to propagandise, to possibly intrigue some, to possibly annoy others, to possibly amuse, to contradict, to be heretical, or just to be dialectical and/or silly.”

    Certainly some people have been “annoyed”; some have been “intrigued” by certain items. Quite a lot of people have been “interested” with many of them downloading O9A texts and/or visiting the omega9alpha blog.

    2) A question was: is it “is it un-satanic to be mischievous, misleading, offensive, manipulative, deceitful, japing, disagreeable. troublesome.” You didn’t answer the question, but resorted to argumentum ad hominem. For the question was about what is and is not, in your opinion, un-satanic (an impersonal question) with you making in reply making it about the person(s) who asked the question.

    3) Respect? Of whom? And why? Gaining respect – of whomsoever – is not an option. To paraphrase a certain cliche: Never seek respect, it’s a sign of weakness.

    4) You keep using the term BS (argumentum ad nauseam) without supplying context. What, for example, is BS about reminding people about the Occult essence of the O9A? What is BS about calling Aquino to account for his silly assumptions about the O9A, such as that Myatt is Moult, or the O9A nine angles being a rip-off of his two-dimensional term, or the silly claim that Myatt is behind published ONA books? What is BS about the ‘Learning From Practical Experience’ and the ‘Fayen’ and so many other posts?

    Polemics are polemics, being polemical is being polemical: ” contentious, disputatious, a diatribe, a controversial argument; a strong verbal or written attack on a person, opinion, or doctrine…”

    You say the item about DM was BS, yet it did provoke loads of people to “look inside” themselves and think about Myatt. To paraphrase and slightly amend what John Dee wrote hundreds of years ago: Anton Long was indeed a myth maker, the best sort of Sorcerer.

    Whoever said that tinkering with people’s emotions, that provoking a response, was not fun? If the SP blog turns some people away from the O9A, or causes some O9A supporter to go elsewhere, then that’s a success. And I sense you may understand “why”, even given – perhaps because of – your own polemics.

    Isn’t it unfortunate that the humor, the irony, the sarcasm, the playfulness, the jests, the fun, tends to get lost by, or be ignored because of, argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad hominem, and ignoratio elenchi in general.

    Liked by 1 person

    • annaczereda says:

      My blog has indeed been inspired by your “polemics” but it’s a general rant about deception. The point is that if you want the lie to be an art, then the target must be unaware of the fact that you are lying. Otherwise you are a failed liar. Your deception is not art since everyone already knows you are being deceptive.

      If your aim is to piss people off and make them turn away from the ONA, then the only person who appears to be enraged is Chloe, provided she’s not trolling. Most of other people associating themselves with the ONA are in no way affiliated with you. The ONA has always been just a bunch of writings for them. You are not even real persons for them. Whether Myatt is alive or not is also irrelevant. The “death of the author” was announced a long time ago and not by you.

      I also don’t see you “tinkering with people’s emotions.” If you assume that everyone responding to you is annoyed, then we can as well assume that all people engaging in discussions or debates are emotionally unstable.

      If your aim is to entertain people, then sure every drama is entertaining. Your antics are interesting, I’ll give you that, but I’m not sure whether you yourselves know what you want to achieve with that. Perhaps, like most other people, you’re simply killing time.

      Liked by 1 person

      • 39yvr2pmq says:

        You wrote:
        {quote} If your aim is to entertain people, then sure every drama is entertaining. Your antics are interesting, I’ll give you that, but I’m not sure whether you yourselves know what you want to achieve with that.{/quote}

        Like “we” have said or hinted at before, “we” and you – beyond our respective polemics and word-sparring – seem to understand each other.

        But to answer your question, yes “we” do know what we want to achieve via the SP blog and to some extent have now achieved that, as other older polemics in various other places mostly (but not always) achieved what was desired.

        Of course, most other responders and readers will probably not so understand, although someone such as DD – who posts on a certain forum – most probably would, as would one or two others.

        To connect with so few on whatever level by whatever means – wordful or wordless – would be satisfaction enough even if the aforementioned “achievement” remained unrealized via the internet or otherwise.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Praetorian says:

    You achieve nothing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s