I disagree almost completely.

• Perl 5 gained a tremendous influx of new people and ideas after the announcement of Perl 6. PerlIO, Perl QA, the Perl6:: namespace on the CPAN, the defined-or operator, locked hashes, assertions...
• There have already been two "Perl 5 oriented Parrot" projects: Sapphire and Topaz. They were done much sooner in the sense that they've been long dead.
• Several of the features you call "theoretical" have had practical benefit, some for decades. I don't understand where to draw a line between "adding proven features from other languages and a few new features is good" and "adding proven features from other languages and a few new features is good". They both read the same way to me.
• I've met very few practicing programmers who could actually read code well.
• It's way too early to complain about Perl 6 error messages when they haven't yet been written.
• The original design of Perl was simple, if you had experience in Unix, sh, C, awk, and a few other languages you'd probably call "boutique".

I'm sympathetic to the fear that Perl 6 is hard to understand. I certainly haven't wrapped my brain around it, but it's starting to sink in over time. There are deeper consistencies you're not seeing yet, partly because the whole design hasn't emerged and partly because you're used to some of the quirks of Perl 5.

I just don't think the facts really support your other arguments, though.