I don't understand. The principles of agile are, to me, what agile is, not the cultish methodologies.
How would you define agile?
From your other comment, it seems like you're defining it as whatever is appropriate for the project. I don't disagree with that sentiment at all, but it does make the word rather pointless.
It's defined by whatever practices emerge through its usage. Which ends up being a big stew of political dysfunction, time-wasting meetings, and pointless metrics.
I feel it is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy to say that "any real agile implementation" does this or that, but all of these "false" Agile implementations lead to the dysfunction.
