I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.
It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.
Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain.
This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks.