I posited back in 2011 that the most effective way for TPTB to kill Bitcoin would be to embrace it and make it grow it's way into a situation where subversion was possible.)
Otherwise known as
Embrace, extend and extinguishEmbrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the 'simple' standard.
Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.
With BTC this will happen like the fall of an axe: relentless and abruptly, a mortal blow to a before perfectly fine and united network.
This is FUD.
There is no transaction acceptable to the current network that is unacceptable with a larger block size. There is no transaction unacceptable to the current network that would become acceptable with a larger block size. No "incompatibility" is being proposed. The block size issue is strictly about scale, not about features.
The point at which old and new chains diverge is the point at which the old chain cannot handle the transaction volume. And if it can't handle the transaction volume, it's going to fail anyway.
Who are you working for? Who is putting up the money to try to stop Bitcoin from scaling?
I ask, not because I think you'll give an honest answer, but because the other people you're talking to need to see and think about this question.