Is Lisp a lie?

I was reading this article, when I had a revelation.

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/rewritingreddit

One assumed it must have been divine intervention, since “there seems to be no other reason for switching to an inferior language.” Another figured something else must be going on: “Could this be…a lie? To throw off competition? It’s not as though Paul Graham hasn’t hinted at this tactic in his essays…” Another chimed in: “I decided it was a prank.” Another suggested the authors simply wanted more “cut corners, hacks, and faked artisanship.”

Pay close attention to this part:

“Could this be…a lie? To throw off competition? It’s not as though Paul Graham hasn’t hinted at this tactic in his essays…”

What if all this stuff about Lisp being more productive is, itself, the big lie?

>>1
The first error is to believe that Lisp is ``language''. It's not. A pure LISP have no syntax, and since there is no language without a syntax then LISP can not be a ``language'', as incorrectly described by many. Instead, LISP is a formal description on how to process data/code. Unfortunately, very few people is aware of this fact (principally due to malformations of the S-Exp notation done by the authors of the so-called ``Common Lisp''). There is nothing, and there will never be anything, more closer to perfection than LISP to create computer programs, in other words, if there is a Builder for this universe it must had been used something very similar to LISP to create it.