On the paradoxical contradiction of the class "clade"

The concept "clade" terms a class of entities (ie, "ancestors including all their descendants"). This class of entities appear "natural" to some biological systematists, but is none the less paradoxically contradictory (ie, the subjective aspect of Russell's paradox).

This fact can be understood by considering that the fact that every class can be a member of another class (like how humans is a member of primates) means that every clade also can be a member of another clade (ie, that every clade contains member clades). Now, if there among all clades should be a single clade that is not a member of any other clade (like the idea "a true tree of life"), then this clade of clades must also equal (be the same as) each and every of its member clades, and thus exclude the possibility of any other clade of clades besides It (ie, exclude the existence of more than one clade of clades), thereby contradicting the fact that there are several clades per definition. Ie, if there are several clades, then there is no single clade, and vice versa.   

The class "clade" thus actually excludes the possibility of single instances of itself by excluding the possibility of clades that are not members of other clades.

The same explanation can be given in terms of entities: the fact that every entity can be a member of another entity (like how a cell in my body is a member of me) means that every clade of entities also can be a member of another clade of entities (ie, that every clade of entities contains member clades of entities). Now, if there among all those clades of entities should be a single clade that is not a member of any other clade (like the idea "a true tree of life"), then this clade of clades must equal (be the same as) each and every of its member clades and thus exclude any other clade of clades besides It (ie, exclude the existence of more than one clade of clades), thereby contradicting the fact that there are several clades per definition.

The class "clade" is thus actually just a mental circularity inside of Russell's paradox, that is, the subjective aspect of Russell's paradox. It actually lacks a single unambiguous solution (but has several ambiguous solutions in orthogonal systems of classification like the Linnean systematics).

On the paradox of the cladistic idea of a single True Tree of Life

Willi Hennig's (today cladistics') idea of a single True Tree of Life is possible ONLY IF the class clade is real, and thus if classes in general are real, because the idea hangs on the axiom that classes are real.

However, IF classes are real, then the idea of a single True Tree of Life is neither possible, since it then is contradictory between all other classes, and contradictions can't be real (at least not as singularities).

It means that Willi Hennig's (today cladistcs') idea of a single True Tree of Life is not possible even if it is possible. All gates to it are closed.

This is, actually, the destiny of all beliefs. Non-contradictory verification is simply an impossibility (as also both Wittgenstein and Popper, among others, have concluded). Understanding of this fact is actually not rocket science today, but just requires understanding of linear algebra, which cladists thus, obviously, haven't. "Cladistics" thus shows all signs of being just an outburst of over-simplification (i.e., populism) by an ignorant bunch of people. However, the fact that some of these people today have come to occupy professor's grades at universities appears to indicate a hidden scientific scandal. How could subjective populism sneak its way to professor's grade in scientific institutions? And, how can these people today be allowed to teach this populism in scientific institutions? What about the poor students that sign in on scientific universities just to have to listen to ignorant teachers teaching subjective populism?