This diatribe against agile is strange.

You say that agile is damaging and demoralizing because it stresses agile teams out with an impeding threat of a deadline? Well, that’s the…

This diatribe against agile is strange. More to the point, it’s quite terrible. It sounds almost as if you’re barking up the wrong tree. If you would now go back to your article and replace the word ‘agile’ with ‘waterfall’, then yes, it might make more sense.

You say that agile is damaging and demoralizing because it stresses agile teams out with an impeding threat of a deadline? Well, that’s the exact reason we’ve switched from waterfall to agile — agile dismisses with the notion of deadline and replaces it with the notion of continuous delivery to the expectations of the stakeholders.

In short, and judging by the article you’ve posted, it does not look like you fully grasp the very fundamentals of agile. Consequently, it is not surprising that your diatribe doesn’t carry any useful information. I’d go back and acquaint myself with the agile process, then try and join a team that is doing it. After a few incremental improvements experienced via agile delivery, you will understand (hopefully) the value of not having a deadline on a project.