You might want to read up on http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman because when you believe that you should write your own version of someone else's point, in a manner that doesn't represent the position or the logic therein, you may in fact be putting up a strawman to try and discredit the other person.

"Unsubstantiated"? Do your own homework on how many Congressmen are in Google's pocket: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=Google+Inc&cx=01067790...

EDIT: Sorry, your company hid most of their donations under their shell corp this year: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=Alphabet&cx=0106779074...

Not to mention Google literally having bought out one of our previous FTC Commissioners, who was paid to fabricate "academic studies" that supported Google's legal positions, which Google then used as "independent" evidence of their claims. During his FTC term, the investigation of Google's conduct mysteriously disappeared, despite the staff at the FTC recommending a case proceed. (And almost every other civilized country has opened such a case against Google. Why's the US silent on the matter?)

You work for a criminal organization that uses deception and manipulation as basic operational currency. And you expect me to take your arguments seriously?

I think I can help clear up one point here at least. You confused Shell Corporation with Holding Company. There is nothing "shell" about a multinational conglomerate.

As to your other points, I'll refer you to my original post.

Nothing you posted adequately contests anything stated here. The difference between Alphabet being a shell corp or a holding company by definition is almost meaningless since everything that isn't Google is a hilarious failure. If anything it seems designed to shield Google's reputation from all their failing projects, but most nobody is buying it.