Is cladistics simple?

Cladists take a pride of keeping matters simple, but take a look at their definitions of "clade" and "cladistics" on Wikipedia. Do these definitions (and the discussions about them)  keep matters simple? To me, they appear as the ultimate confusion of all concepts at the same time... Keeping matters simple in comprehension is obviously the opposite to keeping matters simple in words. The only thing cladists appeas to agree about is that all of them are right (to keep it simple), for what it is worth on a practical level discussing reality...

(Isn't this a fairly simple description of cladistics?)

I can explain cladistics simple by that it is "confusion of object and class, and thereby confusion of conceptualization itself". I can thus also explain simple that the problems cladists have to explain their confusion is due to that it is a confusion, that is, that they try to explain a confusion. I can thus explain simple that cladistics is incomprehensible because it is incomprehensible. The only reason that cladists think that cladistics is comprehensible is that they do not understand that they confuse object and class. They simply do not understand what they are doing.