Daniel O'Connor

This is the “Age of Disclosure,” they say. But what if this is really the Age of something else entirely? THE AGE OF DECEPTION Coming 2026 TheAgeOfDeception dot com Official Trailer 1 (Extended):

@forgainz x.com/DSDOConnor/sta…

@DSDOConnor @DSDOConnor what do you think of Chris Bledsoe and his claim about the orbs he saw?

Current UFO Best Sellers. If indeed what's coming is the Great Deception, then its promotion (#1 below) will remain more popular than its opposition (#2 below). But I'm grateful that more Catholics are now recognizing the extreme danger and resisting it. amazon.com/First-Last-Dec…

@InterstellarUAP Read "The First and Last Deception" by Daniel O'Connor." These beings are in fact demons looking to usurp God and Christ in order to deceive souls away from God and into hell. It's the same game satan has been playing since Adam and Eve.

Presidential Message on the Feast of Saint Joseph whitehouse.gov/briefings-stat…

@FactsMatterPpl @HammerPub Careful @HammerPub , @FactsMatterPpl might whip out his video of us evolving from a fish 😂

@HammerPub @DSDOConnor Really you’ve got a recording of a multicellular organism being conjured spontaneously? That’s amazing you should share and you’ll get all sorts of accolades and create a paradigm shift in our understanding of chemistry and biology.

Saying "the universe is so large that, statistically, it's likely intelligent life exists out there" is an excellent way of showing you know nothing about the universe, statistics, or intelligent life.

This is hilarious. Obviously the First Amendment affords Americans the right to advocate for whatever they like. Your qualm, then, with the Integralists is that they advocate for what you seem to think is heresy. So you want them deported for heresy. So you are more Integralist than any of the Integralists you oppose.

@DSDOConnor @HarrisonGarlic1 And I'm saying it doesn't, and people who think it does don't belong here.

There is no neutral. Everyone is an integralist of some sort. Because all politics is downstream of anthropology—what it means to be human—and this question must include the question of God. And this all flows into the political decisions we all make.

The right to religious liberty doesn't mean Catholics cannot be punished for heresy. For example, the Church still excommunicates heretics. And often excommunication entails inflicting substantially more suffering on the heretic than would be inflicted by, for example, a fine or a brief jail stay. It can deprive a priest, teacher, author, etc., of his whole livelihood.

@DSDOConnor @HarrisonGarlic1 Vatican II teaches religious liberty is a tenet of Natural Law. Religious coercion has no apostolic or biblical foundation, was pressed onto the Church by the Roman empire in the late 4th century. Vatican II, the Catechism, and every subsequent pope supported religious liberty.

@JackoWilliams64 @HarrisonGarlic1 I've said nothing of the sort. I'm merely acknowledging that, ontologically, the Church does have that right.

@DSDOConnor @HarrisonGarlic1 So you agree that ANY baptized Christian should be subject to FORCE at the hands of the Catholic Church, to enforce doctrinal correctness? Yes, I'd deport you too.

An ecclesial right cannot be "renounced," only refrained from being exercised, since the Magisterium does not have power over the Church's own Divine Constitution. Moreover, even if it could be renounced, the very validity of that renunciation would entail an equal validity to reclaiming the same, which in turn means it is fundamentally licit for a Catholic to advcoate for that reclaiming. If Integralists do so advocate (I honestly don't know exactly what Integralism is, so I'll keep this hypothetical), then they are well within orthodoxy to do so. And legally speaking, they are *obviously* within their civil rights to so advocate (remember the 1st amendment, which anti-integralists so love?). I'm curious, then, what your grounds are for insisting upon the deportation of Catholic integralists.

@DSDOConnor @HarrisonGarlic1 The Church renounced that right at Vatican II, and it was always wrong. A nation has the right to decide whether or not to harbor intolerant zealots within its borders.

I don’t know who Thomas Pink is or what he’s argued. But I do know that the Church retains the right to suppress heresy among its members via force. Whether/when/how to advocate for that right/apply it is a prudential question. Mr. Pink is free to advocate for a stronger and more traditional application of that right than is currently exercised. You seriously want him deported for advocating that? Like, honestly?

@DSDOConnor @HarrisonGarlic1 And yes, I'm entirely serious.

@JackoWilliams64 @HarrisonGarlic1 1st sentence: Integralists aren't advocating for either. Is your 2nd sentence serious?

@DSDOConnor @HarrisonGarlic1 Religious coercion and persecution are evil in principle, but I'm a reasonable man. I'm willing to deport Integralists and jihadis as ineligible for citizenship.

The Eastern Orthodox priests Fr. Seraphim Rose and Fr. Spyridon Bailey wrote two respectively excellent books about this. As has the Catholic layman and author @DSDOConnor. Spot-on when it comes to warning against new age syncretism, UFO occultism, and government psyops.

So it's a recipie for what we are afflicted with anyway... Anyway. Obviously not all tenets of Divine Revelation should be civilly imposed. Then again, no integralist is saying it *all* should be. They're merely saying *some* of it should be. Your position seems to be that *none* of it may licitly be. Your position is the extreme one. Furthermore, you seem to be letting pragmatic anxieties about the *how* obstruct the necessary philosophical considerations of the *what.* That's putting the cart before the horse. First, we should settle what the best laws would be. Then, we can consider which ones are feasible to implement.

@DSDOConnor @HarrisonGarlic1 Without a universal religious authority -- and we don't HAVE one, even Catholics can't agree on basics -- this is just a recipe for vicious sectarian strife and persecution.

@JackoWilliams64 @HarrisonGarlic1 All Divine Revelation is defensible on such grounds. It merely cannot all be deduced on those grounds.

@DSDOConnor @HarrisonGarlic1 Nope. Coercive laws should be defensible on rational grounds that don't require the miraculous infusion of supernatural grace by the Holy Spirit.

@JackoWilliams64 @HarrisonGarlic1 You're shifting the goalposts

@DSDOConnor @HarrisonGarlic1 No, but the appeal must be through REASON, which cannot resolve questions of revelation for those not granted the supernatural gift of Faith. Same reason we don't forcibly baptize Jews.

@JackoWilliams64 @HarrisonGarlic1 Are you under the impression that everyone must (/does) agree with every law?

@DSDOConnor @HarrisonGarlic1 No because it's impossible to forge agreement on them without the use of force which is tyrannical. The Pope can't even control the German bishops. It's a joke.

@HarrisonGarlic1 .@ConceptualJames (he blocked me so I can't reply under his tweet) is upset with you, so you're doing something right. And, indeed, you are right.

@JackoWilliams64 @HarrisonGarlic1 Many vital questions are only answered (definitively, at least) in Revelation. Yes, we must include those answers it gives in our crafting of civil law.

@HarrisonGarlic1 But the Integralists and some Christian Nationalists want to codify questions answered only by Revelation. And THAT'S what our Founders wished to avoid.