It's more subtle than the idea of a "takeover" by non-technical shadowy people sitting around a table. It's about fooling enough minds so that the project succumbs to the ignorant tyranny of the majority. Cuz, you know, democracy.
That could happen. I agree that poor decision could be a huge problem. Only a consensus can change things and a dumb consensus would likely produce a dumb result. Elections have sometimes resulted in a dictatorship or horrible policy. Still, democracy is better than tyranny. That's my hope anyway.
It's about getting people to believe that Bitcoin is about making a better PayPal/VISA, as opposed to making third-parties (central authorities) obsolete thus giving people control over their own finances.
That may be true for some. I would not even consider using a centralized money anymore. Bitcoin has no way for a central authority to operate. No one can change the price, the supply, the distribution. No one can keep me from using it or compel me to use it. They cant change the fees or the use cases. What is left to control?
It's about leveraging conformist minds (Gavin, Hearn, Garzik, ...) into diverting the project toward a state of increased vulnerability/uncertainty.
Gavin has no more authority than you do. There is no official anything and you could create a competing chain that becomes the "real" bitcoin.
It's about creating/promoting the perception of disassociating the crypto-anarchist roots of Bitcoin and placing the steering wheel into the hands of people who don't think there's anything wrong with debt-based money (because they only pay attention to mainstream sources of information).
What steering wheel?