Ceci, n'est pas une phylogénie

Inspired by Magritte's example, I would like to present the problem with the class clade in phylogenetic systematics as: 

Ceci, n'est pas une phylogénie.

Compare:

The statements accompanying the illustrations appear contradictory (to some of us), but, try to smoke the pipe...

What the contrast between the illustrations and the statements actually does, is that it reveals a confusion of the abstract with reality that some of us are prone to. This is, perhaps less obvious in the upper example than in the lower, because most of us can understand the difference between a pipe and an illustration of a pipe.

So, what is the difference between a phylogeny and illustrations of this phylogeny? Well, the difference is that a phylogeny is unambiguous, whereas illustrations of this phylogeny are contradictory. This difference means that the phylogeny is indecisive between itself and its contradictory illustrations. We simply can't distinguish between the phylogeny itself and its contradictory illustrations. 

This difference means that we practically have to choose between chasing a non-existing True Illustration of The True Phylogeny or accept The Set of Illustrations that contradictory illustrate The True Phylogeny. The option of finding The True Illustration of The True Phylogeny simlply is not given.

Cladistics "denies" this fact and instead "claims" that it is the other way around, that is, that the phylogeny is a phylogeny, and thus that the pipe is a pipe. This "denial" and "claim" do not, of course, turn the phylogeny into a phylogeny nor the pipe into a pipe, but just claims the confusion the illustrations reveals. It simply boldly denies the difference between the abstract and reality that the illustrations reveal.

Cladistics thus "claims" that the abstract equals reality, and "denies" any difference between them. Unfortunately, this "claim" and "denial" is contradictory, actually the contradiction that is called Russell's paradox, and thus wrong per definition.The claim and denial are actually a conceptual confusion  which cladists "claim" instead of acknowledging that it is a conceptual confusion. Cladistics thus can't be objected to per definition, since the objections are the facts that cladistics "deny". Cladistics is thus an orthogonal circularity (i.e. a paranoia) which can't be objected to, since all objections are denied by cladistics. Cladistics is thus a sect by all definitions of a "sect".