Whilst browsing YouTube for my daily podcast, I stumbled on (or rather, I was shown by YouTube's algorithm) a 5 hour documentary by an account named “baskin”. My interest was piqued, as the title mentioned mentalism, and it seemed to be a documentary exposing it, so I indulged.

After the first 10 minutes, I knew this film was more than an attempt at exposing a magician’s trick. Whether baskin knew it or not, he was shining light on a form of deception used for decades by the most influential group of people around the world- politicians. And, more importantly, he gave this tactic a name: Metadeception.

Here is the documentary, I highly recommend you watch.

In his video, Baskin defines metadeception as:

“Deception that operates beyond the deceptive act itself, obscuring it’s nature, boundaries, or existence”

Curious, I prompted Google’s Gemini to give a definition as well. It was:

“Metadeception is a, often, multi-layered, deceptive, technique in which a performer (typically a mentalist or magician) extends the performance beyond the apparent start and end of a show, using pre-show work, psychological manipulation, and often secret technology to make the, ultimate, reveal seem, truly, impossible.”

I like this description because it lays out 4 distinct parts of what goes into metadeception:

• Multi-layered.
• Extends the deception beyond the apparent start and finish.
• Use pre-show work, psychological manipulation, and secret technology.
• Make the reveal seem impossible.

Upon further examination, I realized it accurately describes how politicians, in tandem with media (be it social or mainstream) and bureaucrats, use deception. And alas, we have arrived at the subject of this paper.

Politicians and mentalists both use metadeception, with only one key distinction. A mentalist uses metadeception to convince an audience that the “reality” they see is impossible. A politician uses metadeception to convince an audience that the “reality” they see would be far worse without them.
Let us look at 2 real-world scenarios.

Take, for example, this House Intelligence Committee hearing on March 20th, 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHZ_j_Tim08&t=4547s
(Looking at 1:14:34 - 1:15:45)

The witnesses are former Director of the NSA, Mike Rogers, and former head of FBI, James Comey. Representative Jim Himes asks questions about Russia's influence on the 2016 election. I want to focus on Himes trying to lay the narrative that Russians hacked the DNC to sway the election.

Himes asks Rogers if there is consensus among the intelligence community over whether this made up narrative is true, if it had any influence over the election, and whether or not Russia tried to hack the RNC.

5 hour hearing, and there is much to unpack from just a 1 minute and 11 second line of questioning. Even more so when considering the data was “stolen” by an American.

What does he mean by “the intelligence community”? Why not give specific names and specific information that prove Russia’s involvement? Instead, he uses a phrase that sounds trustworthy and reliable in order to make his assertions more digestible. He then directs our attention to the "electorate" in the Presidential election, rather than the democratic primary, where the crime actually occurred. Lastly, and probably the most blatant attempt at controlling the narrative, he brings the RNC into the discussion out of nowhere, adding to the false narrative that Russia wanted Trump to win.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see the metadeception at play. Using manipulative vocabulary, he makes his information sound reliable and directs our skepticism towards a foreign country and the opposing political candidate. When was the beginning and end of this fictional story? He wants to convince the viewer his sources investigated and exposed the timeline. There was pre-hearing work, working beforehand with a team of lawyers. Stacking these lies on top of each other made the audience wonder if this would have ever come to light if he was not there telling them what happened.

The metadeception becomes more noticeable once we learn the “hack” was actually from an American DNC volunteer named Seth Rich, who discovered the DNC primary had been rigged for Hillary Clinton, and was murdered shortly after leaking what he "stole" from an internal server to Wikileaks.

Using metadeception, he covered up a terrible truth by fabricating another, posing as a savior. But a mentalist, like Oz Pearlman, wants the truth to seem impossible. Case in point, when he was a guest on FLAGRANT, a podcast hosted by Andrew Shultz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFbHmn0bnhk&t=3850s
(We look at 41:16 - 1:12:08)

During the show, Pearlman asked Shultz to pick a random word, from a random page, from a book that had not been released to the public. Surely, this is impossible unless you have magic powers. But, when the trick was completed, initially Shultz is shocked. However, he eventually starts asking questions and showing signs of skepticism. He even got close to exposing the truth by “reverse-engineering” the act. Using the Himes playbook, Pearlman had to cover this up and get the audience back to believing the impossible.

Quick on his feet, he suggested repeating the trick, but this time, there was no funny business, because a different co-host would leave the set, find a word from a random book in the studio, and return with this word in mind.

Pearlman, who obviously cannot read minds, needs to create a diversion to lower the suspicions of the audience and the other members of the podcast, so instead of immediately trying to guess the word, he begins a completely different performance. Significant time passes before he asks a co-host to step off the set again. Away from the others and he guides him through a series of questions, recording every answer on a notepad. One of those questions disclosed the word he had in mind. All Pearlman needed was to get a quick glimpse of the notepad. The co-host returns to the set, the performance is completed, and Pearlman gets some “oohs” and “ahhs” from the podcast crew.

Baskin does a brilliant job of breaking down exactly what happens during this specific performance, so all credit to him. His documentary brings to light the metadeception used on this act. Again, highly recommend you watch his documentary.

I do not want to dive too deep into this example because, one, baskin does a much better job than I do, and two, it would take an entire book to go through the manipulative questions he uses to influence the audience and hosts. The main objective in using this example was to show the the obvious similarities between Himes and Pearlman.

I must say, it is very impressive how well Pearlman is able to think on his feet. His act was basically exposed, and he was able to get out of it.

Multiple times he asks the target if they have spoken beforehand, or if there is any way he could know the word in their mind. But to an inexperienced audience, there is no way to know if this is true. Just like using the phrase “intelligence community”, a person who is unaware a lie is happening would not understand the specific reason this name is used.

He diverts attention by performing another trick and going on long-winded monologues. Rep. Himes does the same by giving us another "trick" to look at- the Presidential election.

The beginning and end of Pearlman's ruse is obscured when he suggests reading the mind of a co-host, in response to skepticism. On the surface this appears like a genuine attempt at proving he has this ability, but in reality, this is a completely different method of deception. Himes, while not claiming to have any special abilities, conceals corruption by reiterating a lie produced from a unknown source, giving no information on the timeline of the real crime.

Pearlman has rehearsed this performance many times, just like Himes is briefed by his team before the hearing.

These are 2 unrelated careers performing in front of unrelated audiences, yet the way they influence what the crowd interprets as “reality” is far to similar. Both Himes and Pearlman use the four parts of metadeception.

I will go into the four pieces of metadeception, with each part getting its own essay. This being the introduction to the subject, there will be five parts, so I hope I have interested you enough to return for the rest!

My goal is to spark debate, so hearing what you have to say is greatly appreciated!

Once again, huge thanks to baskin for the inspiration for this writing.

I think it is time we pull back the curtain on the tricks and manipulation practiced every day in Washington DC. See you next time.