...that animals are someone. Nonhuman animals also have an immeasurable inherent value, and due to their sentience, humans exploiting them is wrong. They would not need a diagnostic tool if humanity just stopped exploiting them. So, just stop exploiting animals and tell everyone.

Here is the documentation regarding Kepism:

KEP

(From Greek klept- to rob, and Latin capere to seize)

Primal act by which the human animal cuts the nonhuman animal out of moral consideration, both physically and mentally, by concealing who that animal truly is - thereby making them a means to selfish human ends. Kep logically precedes both suffering and use: it does not decide how a being is treated, but whether that being belongs to itself. Structurally parasitic (living off another's substance, without return) and fraudulent (resting on a consent that could never be given). Persists independent of demonstrable pain. The single root from which every manifestation of KEPISM (food, clothing, labor, entertainment, research etc.) derives - and the only point at which it fully ends.

The immutable definition is “kepism is the mentality of the parasitic dependency of human animals on nonhuman animals — regardless of suffering or what the animals want”

KEPISM

"Kepism is a mentality defined by the parasitic dependency of humans on non-humananimals — regardless of the suffering involved."

A "kep" refers to any exploitative action (such as wearing a jacket made of someone else'sskin).

"kepism," means: all the ideas that create and protect animal exploitation and the action itself. No matter what the animals want or how much pain is involved. It is the original idea/act as and the whole of it.

Kep is the idea and the action, that is for example “a cow is not a member of the moral community and can be used” as idea is kep and using the skin of a cow as jacket is a kep. Or using (even found) feathers to make a blanket is kep. Kep is the first act and every single act and idea that constitutes kepism

Kepism manifests through the continuous use of animals and necessitates their objectification, a process that inherently precludes true decency.

A kep is a wrong action humans should not do.

Kepism identifies the systematic seizure of animal life, labor, and bodies. Much like a pickpocket who does not need to cause physical pain to commit a theft, Kepism is defined by the "taking" itself, independent of whether "interest violations" or suffering occur. It covers kepping in its most brutal forms—such as the conscious dismemberment of fully awake animals—to its most "harmless" forms, like taking a feather from a bird to create a pen.

Kepism covers false beliefs like: „animals are objects that exist for humans to use“ or „the cow's skin is a leather jacket.“

The mentality is maintained by a series of false necessities and linguistic masks. To end Kepism, we must also end the euphemisms: we must stop using terms like "factory farm" and call them what they are—mass-slavery-camps and slaughter-factories.

KEPIST ZONE

The kepistic zone is the spatial-material externalization of the kepistic disposition: the concrete place where a mentality turns into surface, fence, cage, or territory. It is not merely a setting but the spatialization of a relation – a place that renders visible, and at the same time invisible, the order that produces it. The fur farm, the land where the fox is shot to obtain their feathers or fur, are kepistic zones just as much as the mink farm or the cattle farm; the apartment or the city where dogs live alongside humans is likewise such a zone, insofar as this cohabitation itself remains organized as a zone of use. The zone is the place where a belief ceases to be thought or spoken and becomes a built, enclosed, administered reality – a topography of disposal in which animals, depending on their function (food, clothing, companionship), are assigned to a specific zone of use, without that assignment itself ever being put up for question.

THE KEPIST DISPOSITION

is the internalized assumption that animals are available for human use—not as a conscious decision, but as an invisible structure of thinking, feeling, and speaking. It operates before reflection begins. It requires no malicious intent. It requires only normalcy.

KEPIST COUNTERSTRIKE

The social punishment triggered when the pathological parasitic dependency of humans on other animals (regardless of "harm" or willcalculation) is named. It follows the same two-step pattern documented in psychopathic perpetrators toward humans: as long as the exploitation stays unnamed, a facade of care and friendliness holds. Once it's named, that facade doesn't collapse into remorse, it flips immediately into attack. Ranging from deflection (camouflage), attacking the message to social excommunication of the messenger.

KEPIST CAMOUFLAGE

The mechanism by which the mentality defined by the parasitic dependency of humans on animals, regardless of the suffering involved, stays invisible, is protecting itself, even when this mentality is directly presented and named as such. It works on three connected levels: it hides the recurring pattern of taking animal life, labor, and bodies; it hides that the animal is someone rather than something; and when this parasitic dependency is named and offered as a concept to recognize, it actively works against acknowledging it, producing rejection instead of recognition. As long as the animal appears as a thing and the naming of this dependency is refused, there is nothing left for the eye to find.

ADDENDUM

Substantially exploiting the weak is indefensible, this fact can be used by machiavellian actors for their power games. So take care, that this is a concept used for the nonhuman animals and not for human power structures and alliances. Keeping your activism decentralised and outward flowing (informing people and talking to them about the fact that animals are someone and not something) might enable humans to drop their motivation against the animals.

Basically I have drawn from the theoretical work of the founders of veganism and worked based on that, coined kepism and formulated theoretical fragments. Kepism enables utilitarianism for animals, if you use this framework for a utilitarian standpoint in relationship to animals you are misusing the framework. The basis of the problem is to not see the immeasurable inherent value of nonhuman animals, which is removing them from the moral community.

Side-Note: Peter Singer failed to create a correct analysis because the utilitarian standpoint regarding animals is based on a post-hoc fallacy. “The new world is only possible as a copy of the old world.” Instead of creating a new world.

I formulated kepism 22nd December 2025 officially for the first time. The concept should be immutable in meaning. I have specifically not mentioned the explicit beliefs that are fundamental to kepism, as I do not know them, but it is mainly a prejudice of human animals against nonhuman animals. Humans are motivated against nonhuman animals, this is also the reason they reject to see and drop kepism. Hence I see it as the best way to dissolve kepism by not starting with the label, but by talking about animals being someone. As I have drawn this from the founders of veganism, I still see veganism as “the doctrine that humanity should live without exploiting animals” and exploitation in this context as use for selfish purpose as Cross defined it. We eventually have to work towards an era where animal exploitation by humanity is a thing of the past.

QUOTES AND P.S.

The main quote kepism is based on is:

“(3) its fundamental concern is with the meeting point between the world of man and the world of the animals; (4) its existence presupposes maladjustment at that point; (5) its purpose must be the correction of that maladjustment; (6) the maladjustment is intimately connected with man's use of animals — more precisely, with his habit of acting as a parasite upon living creatures who cannot successfully resist his will.” by Leslie Cross, 1949 “In search for Veganism - Part 2”

I do not remember the exact quotes, but I was dealing with a debate bro from germany and i read “The Vegan” from 1944 to 1956 again and then it dawned on me that the founders of veganism (namely to mention a few: G. Allan Henderson, Fay Henderson, Donald Watson, Leslie J. Cross) had a problem analysis and did not coin it with a one word trigger, hence i built on this.

A good example for the non-pathocentric deontic property approach regarding animals is Fay Hendersons letter “Honey” from “The Vegan” 1946

Which i quote here in full:

HONEY

By Fay K. Henderson

The question of honey in relation to Veganism is being earnestly considered by many to-day, but the issue is quite a defi nite one. Honey is an animal product and, therefore, is not used by Vegans.

"The natural nectar of flowers is a substance of high quality, combining the rich moistures of the earth with the potent forces of the sun in a sweetness and aroma most attractive to the insect world. It is an ingenious device on the part of Nature for the purpose of enticement, inviting these small creatures to a banquet in order that they might assist in the process of fertilisation and enable the plant to reach its highest manifestation in the form of fruit containing seeds to propagate the species. The purpose of the bees' visits to the flowers is to gather this sweet-smelling nectar in large quantities and to store it as food for the future need of the hive. With the exception of some hard fruits such as apples, most fresh foods do not keep long but readily lose their vitality and go bad unless sterilised. In the case of the nectar, this has to be processed by the bees in preparation for storage and it is converted into honey which will keep for an indefinite period. This processing is carried out within the body of the bee by means of certain glandular secretions which bring about chemical changes. Small quantities of alcohol are produced and also formic acid which acts as a preservative and prevents fermentation. These are, of course, incorporated with the honey. Furthermore, in honey the radiations have become changed so that the cosmic and solar radiations of the nectar are dominated by the animal radiations of the bee. Thus it is that honey is not a fresh vital substance of purely plant origin, but it is partially digested food prepared by certain forms of insect life and stored for their winter use. The extraction of honey from a hive is exploitation of bee life, as it deprives the colony of future supplies of food. The substitution of sugar (usually white) in no way compensates the insects for the loss of their own highly specialised preparation. The only justification for keeping bees is that their services are valuable in the fertilisation of fruits. Hives and other protection can be provided in return for these services rendered, but no honey should be taken. If, after a poor season, a new hive requires winter feeding, there should be excess honey to be spared from an older hive. Although honey is still widely accepted as a natural sweetening agent, yet Vegans, realising that it is an animal food, will find good alternatives in the dried fruits, raw sugars, molasses, maple syrups and some malt extracts.”

Also an example quote of Donald Watson from 1946:

“In earlier issues evidence was given to suggest that the whole question of man's relationship with animals is ripe for review both in the interests of animals and of ourselves, and it is to work for the breaking down of our traditional dependence on animals for food, clothing, and other purposes that The Vegan Society” - Donald Watson

Then the word parasite was used so frequently by many members of the vegan society, that I adopted it because of them. Kepism could also be simplified be called the “animal use ideology”, but Kep is also the act and from my understanding a consciously formed idea is also an act and an act like using someones skin is also connected to an idea. Action and thinking is inseparable, siding with either: “The world is mind.” or “The world is matter.” is not what I want to do, as ultimately there is a question mark at the end of it all. So this divide might be a problem between german idealism and materialism, that I do not want to promote furthermore. Hence Kep is a mental act and a physical act alike and Kepism is the mentality that precedes but also the action itself.

I chose the syllable kep, because I wanted to create a new animal specific trigger word for the animals. As speciesism has been (due to its inherent interest calculation) used to justify wildlife extinction and carnism is in its original form (“a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species" by Richard Ryder) “Carnism is the invisible belief system that conditions people to eat certain animals. Carnism is essentially the opposite of veganism.” (Quote from Carnism.org 2026) so it is not the functional antonym to veganism, it is about eating meat and thereby the functional antonym to vegetarianism.

Both of these animal-specific trigger words are kepist in their genesis. This might be the reason why carnism is used to justify lab grown meat. Which still would be kepist.

@ANIMALEMANCIPATION - 28th of July, 2026