While I didn't downvote the above, I don't think downvoters are proving the GP's point, so much as disagreeing with the GP's assertion that there's some agenda behind it all (e.g. 'pro-Pentagon', whatever that means). It is trivial to search for Reddit threads about any given hot topic (trans rights in sports, the war in Ukraine) and see a ton of comments from unbanned users that dissent from the liberal orthodoxy (or whatever one thinks is that totalizing force that is 'behind it all').

There's no agenda behind Reddit. The reality is much simpler. You get enough people together to discuss, you give them upvote/downvote tools, you weight things based on those upvotes/downvotes, and you'll find yourself witnessing the opinions of a meta-mind driven by whatever the majority opinions are of the audience of a particular discussion. The deeper into the discussion you go (e.g. sorting by upvotes), the more you'll learn about the dimensionality of the opinions of subpopulations of the audience.

You'll also witness people attempting to, successfully or unsuccessfuly, manipulate the system and give themselves outsized voices, but those efforts are not nearly as totalizing as people describe. It's too easy to counter the "If you say X you'll be banned from reddit!" opinions with simple google searches of reddit topics that are full of people saying X.

I've been participating in online discussions since Usenet days. While the modern systems are more efficient with the whole idea of downvotes effectively silencing someone without requiring rebuttal, the overall pattern has been that the membership of a particular forum will ultimately marginalize people with opinions found abhorrent by the majority.