Fwiw, of course not everything should be viewed as a conspiracy, many things we see or hear are what they are, yet the word-use together has certainly been ponerized. Looking at any issue that has rough edges, so to speak, requires objectivity to discern a solution, even if it is just a theory, perhaps because we just might not ever know, yet the foundations are well researched and often scientific; dots are connected. Conspiracies are part of everyday governance and commerce and thus Cointelpro’s seem to have enabled, through false groups and the media in many forms, to divide and focus on the irrationality of the two words used together by pointing out known quacks who use fanciful and subjective means. With this in place, not many will be able to state, using objective data of this or that about governance and commerce et al without being accused of being CT’s. The article is so focused on the words and does not focus on the diligence or non diligence of research by people who question matters.
Looking at 9/11, there is an extremely high scientific, logical and politically motivated likelihood of a conspiracy, with many divergent theories and just as many corrupt subjective motivations. When faced with plausible evidence, it is far easier for the PTB to not dismiss the evidence, they don't need to, they only focus on the word association, thus dismissing in the minds of others (usually who have no view) the creditability of any of the above, except the official organ. On the other hand, business as usual, in the field of governance, finance, MIC, etcetera, is a continuous never ending manipulation in varying degrees and one must decide, is this normal? If it is not, the word branding has become very useful for those not wishing discussion, not wanting any light. Add in a focused authoritarian psychological assessment of those words and those who employ them, either objectively or subjectively, they can both then be view in the same light without differentiations and dismissed, osit.