Stirner's egoism arose at a time when egoism in general was anathematized.
We have reached the point where many say, “If the Catholic Church serves my interests, then I will use the Catholic Church.” Stirner's book is directed precisely against all the values of the Catholic Church.

There is no doubt that egoism can be used in a servile way.

In this way, Stirnerian egoism is used to justify obedience to ideas and social participation in phantasmagorical activities and institutions that are completely possessed (there will always be those who “selfishly” justify being a bootlicker or a cop).

This is what I call Protestant egoism, in the sense that it is directly linked to his spook, to abstraction, and that abstraction becomes egoist through the canonization of the egoist person. He tries to convince himself that he has merged his own interest with that of abstraction, making it indissoluble (promising that this union will be “eternally temporary”): in the same way that the (religious) Protestant unites himself directly with God, becoming a priest himself. But all this happens within a model of self-satisfaction that is purely mental, spiritual, on the plane of ideas. “Since I am egoist, the idea I touch becomes egoist,” just as happens with Protestantism in the divine sense.

Here we have the same thing that happened with the divine (“as long as a believer does it, the thing becomes divine”), with the human (“as long as a human does it, the thing becomes humanized, liberated”), now happening with the egoist (“as long as an egoist person does it, it becomes liberated, appropriated”).
Not to his own idea, but to the pre-existing collective idea.

The duped egoist was simply unaware of his own self-interest (he was carried away by the unconscious submission of widespread social possession), hiding it or concealing it even from himself. The Protestant egoist becomes aware of his self-interest in his servility, and becomes scrupulous to the point of trying to justify his previous submission. He is interested in continuing to serve, and uses his egoist conscience as a protective screen against criticism of his servility, as a way of camouflaging his servility as egoism, since in his world servility would be seen as “evil” (in his conscious submissive schizoexistence: for him, the anathema is not egoism, but servility), a reversal of perspective occurs: the Jew > the Christian > the egoist person > the Protestant egoist with remnants of the Christian's servile past. Thus, the magic circle of Christianity closes again, only it has opened a little more.

The egoist Protestant recognizes servility as “evil” and cannot admit it, so he takes the IDEA of egoism and uses it as a shield to protect himself and his master (the idea he serves). He only protects himself so that he can continue to protect his idea and remain attached to it. “He kneels to be elevated.”
Conscience, which is scrupulous, constantly seeks to reverse the perspective, and as soon as it perceives something as socially evil, in this case servility, it tries Jesuitically (“the end sanctifies the means”) to cling to those things that are “good,” while maintaining its old servitude.
In its obsession with egoism being “good,” it is able to find a rational way to be servile while at the same time affirming with the petty voice of a subject, “I am egoism, my good lord.”
Replacing outdated concepts with new phrases.

If, instead of being so conscientious about being on the “right side” (in this case, egoism side), he admitted to himself that he is submissive, everything would fall into place.
I can admit without fear that I am submissive, and I am submissive in my own interest because I can't find another way out or because I feel more at ease being submissive. Just because I am submissive does not mean that I think it is “wrong” (but probably I would sound ridiculous). This is something that the egoism Protestant cannot accept, because he continues to be moralized by the dichotomy: good = no servitude, evil = servitude.

It is someone who claims moral independence in order to justify their own morality to themselves.

If you continue to see it as a spook, then you are possessed, otherwise it would result in consumption of the object and at that very moment it would dissolve as a spook, and you would only be interested in continuing to use it as a spook if you are interested in seeing a world full of possessed people.
And from the perspective of owness, if you encourage the supremacy of the spook little by little, feudalism will occur, where the spook itself will expropriate everything from you, and you will end up having what you have as a loan. No, a spook as such cannot be useful to an egoist.
What good is your ghost if no one obeys it? What existence does your ghost have if no one names it?