Really? The problem is overgeneralising on abstracts, instead of the realistic truth that Hearn has for years proposed ideas that are a risk to Bitcoin. What pro-XT posters have proven is how easy it is for people to believe in a person and his fork who is so potentially destructive to Bitcoin.
The problem with idealism in abstracts is it doesn't predict tyrants. I'd bet if XT garnered 75% of nodes, you'd see the one of two possible scenarios:
Scenario #1
1> Bitcoin becomes centralized (the protocol) via trusted nodes.
2> Bitcoin uses checkpoints to prevent another hostile takeover like its own.
3> Bitcoin replaces anonymity with identity requirements (passports).
4> Bitcoin loses fungibility in favor of tainted coins, red lists, black lists, and white lists.
5> Due to #1-4, it would be hard to use any other implementation.
Scenario #2
Bitcoin self-destructs in the process of scenario #1 being rejected by the masses.
The "benevolent dictator" will become a billionaire in scenario #1. He has so much to gain in scenario #1, scenario #2 is worth the risk to him.
There is nothing backing up what you are saying here, this is just conjecture.