There are many flaws in this idea. You have the implied premise that:

• A boycott could be hypothetically so effective it could sink Intel

Impossible without governments of large nation-states and other corporations joining the boycott, and still unlikely even if nation-states and corporations were to participate. Even so, if we neglect that, you're also assuming:

• Intels assets would be worth zero to other suppliers, and that no one would buy them. (impossible)
• Existing deployed Intel hardware would magically disappear. (Of course not)
• That mining is not a competition. (Of course it is. Unmined coins are equidistant from all mining competitors who all have the access to the same market availability of new chips)

Even if you believe existing chips would burn out before being surpassed by other chips, your stance also implies that:

• We need bitcoin to inflate at the rate it was originally designed to. (we don't)

Inflation slowing is /by design/, and it's balanced by pricing of the currency. Your bitcoin will be worth more, but 1 satoshi will not be too large to spend. This whole race discussion is irrelevant anyway due to quantum computing already existing and likely to be mainstream in the next 10 years (even w/out Intel involvement).

You also effectively disregard proof-of-stake crypto-currencies, which would get better positioning in the market.