This is what agile proponents always say. Whatever someone is suggesting, that's agile. It appears to mean nothing. Here, you're saying that the agile manifesto literally says nothing beyond "let people make up whatever process they want", which boils down to nothing at all. If that's really the case then agile as a concept may as well not exist.

But we have story points, epics, scrums, retros etc. Agile is very much more than that.

I think people just confuse Agile the manifesto and various methodologies that claim to adhere to it. You can work in a way that meets the manifesto without any of those concepts that are tied to it through things like Scrum.

Most “no true agile” posts are really “no true scrum” because the issue is firmly in process and methodology rather than underlying principles.

In fact I’d say Scrum itself whilst designed to meet the principles doesn’t actually do so in practice.

You have to look at how Agile was started. Before it often projects were planned out in detail beforehand and then they tried to execute that plan without changes. As it turned out that often didn’t work. So the Agile Manifesto writers tried to explain that software is unpredictable and you have to make sure people can adapt to changes.

Scrum as a base methodology isn’t too bad either but as always management prefers precise plans and a lot of Agile consultants are happy to feed that. Saying “let people make up whatever process they want” is actually quite profound because it often goes complete against what management wants.

Even granting Marx wasn't particularly specific, the specific invention of Leninism, the Party as "intermediary" between the proletariat and History with a capital H, is conceived of absolutely nowhere in Marx's work, but the 'perversion' of Marxism to Leninism to Maoism is no different than the 'perversion' of Agile to Scrum to SAFE; there's no 'perversion' at all, because the idea of "lineage", while it works for and describes sequences of organic structures, is completely unfit for understanding ideas and how and why they change, to the point that its difficult to really use the word "origin" when it comes to ideas, particularly when each phase distinguishes itself from the last by what problems its trying to solve, the constraints on solutions, etc. We can only really talk about them being related insofar as there are structural identities in the concepts but that's about it.

If this is clear and understood, congratulations, you basically understand the gist of the French historian Michel Foucault's criticism of modernity (it supposes origins and progress when no such thing actually exists, so how do we talk about politics, history, ethics?), a criticism which would go on to inform all of contemporary Left politics, including contemporary progressivism and identity politics.