the attack is technically incorrect i think, because cartels theoretically are inherently instable. (or an organisation that calls itself a cartel,really never exists as a cartel, unless they want to know them selves a cartel) (just anecdotical read something about opec cartel, http://edwardjayepstein.com/archived/opec3.htm)

I asked you for naming me 1 succesfull stable cartel, not thanks to governmenthelp (or even a government cartel).
I still did not get any reply for this.

The cartel you describe is simply trying to disrupt bitcoin, and is willing to pay a price for it.

You could make it more simple: what if amazon and some friends buy 1 million asics, and mine only their own transactions, others will loose business, because their blocks get mined too late, have double spends, etc etc

If Amazon-cartel does not subsidize its mining department, then how ever can they gain traction just because they get all the work from their own network? (even refuting others transactions so loosing business)
Amazon is here by doing this basically loosing money, as they give all transactions to their daughter company, where another mining company might be willing to do certain transactions at certain times for lower fees.

Anyway: amazon/cartel (which is inherently instable as all members of cartel could earn more money by not obeying the cartel-rules) will have to subsidize its mining activities, and thus invest in something, for which later the cartel should receive some kind of payout.

I dont see this attack happening really...