The battle against cladistics is a matter of discarding belief in favor for skepticism

Cladistics only accepts a kind of group (ie, clades), which also includes the members of the group as groups. It thus only accepts groups that are also members of themselves. Such groups are thus not only groups, but also includes themselves as members of themselves. These groups are thus entities that include the groups themselves as entities.

If cladistics is not a paranoic circularity, then the question is what a paranoic circularity is. If cladists actually believe that they can partition reality into only such groups, then their mental statuses ought to be assessed. The question is thus whether cladists are in need of an assessment of their mental statuses or if they simply are confusing concepts for profit. Both of these are just as serious, since its paranoic approach is typological and thus supporting racism. If such groups actually would have been consistent, then racism would also have made sense, but since they aren't, it doesn't.

Cladistics is thus a reappearance of the same old oversimplified racism that dominated the beginning of the 20-ieth century. One would have hoped that it had stayed away longer, but the core of it was effectively transfered by the German entomologist Willi Hennig in the form of cladistics, and does today appear to have taken the power in biological systematics again, although it is clearly paranoic and thus not making sense. Making sense is thus, obviously, not a necessary prerequisite for an approach to be accepted, but instead belief, obviously, overrides making sense.

If we do not find a way to discard cladistics, then we're heading towards the same development as that in the beginning of the last century. And, if the description of cladistics above can't do this trick, then the question is what can. If the approach is immune to both being understood as paranoic and being falsified by facts, then nothing can stop it. Then, racism itself (ie, subjectivity) is bound to return over and over again, polarizing people and thus eradicating objectivity. Then, the question is: are you with us or with them, without any option to be objective in between.

The battle against cladistics is thus a battle for objectivity against subjectivity, and thus a battle against all subjective notions, such as racism. It is a battle for an objective approach between all opposite subjective approaches. It is a battle for gray between black and white, It is a battle for objective understanding between subjective notions. It is a battle for sensibility between beliefs. It is a battle for human rights between mine and your rights. It is a battle for the right to remain neutral between opposite subjective opinions (and skeptical to both of them). It is a battle for the freedom of both thoughts and talk. It is a battle for the freedom to explain that cladistics is both insensible and falsified by facts. It is a battle for the fact that the racism of cladistics is not supported by science, but instead by a belief in science, when science actually is not a matter of belief, but, on the contrary, of discarding belief.

The battle against cladistics is thus a matter of discarding belief in favor for skepticism (when cladistics instead is a battle of discarding skepticism in favor for belief).