A Paranoid Theory about Peer Review I Haven't Seen Yet

What if the purpose of calling peer review “peer review” is to create paranoid theories? Peer review is mainly a matter of a filter against careless authors (carelessness includes sending a paper to the wrong journal) but the term sounds like it means “authoritarians enforcing groupthink.”

As a result, a slightly-careless author with a nonstandard opinion is likely to attribute the consequent rejections to The Establishment instead of fixing the problems. The presence of this paranoia will be used as an argument against the nonstandard opinions. Some authors might even not bother with academic publication because they're convinced the deck is stacked against them.