The title of this fine article is "Satanic Mummery & Other Moronology". I like that. The mummery part brings to mind the preserved remains of the famous initiate-kings of Egypt, and indeed the labyrinth that protects their tombs or initiation chambers in the pyramids is the symbol I have used many times myself when describing this particular work: Fosforos isn't a book, it's a labyrinth. Filled with traps to the unwary, curses for the profaners, countless twists and turns, and seemingly empty dead-ends. And about the second part of the naming, I assume the writer must be entitling it after his own criticism, that being signed by mr. Joseph Moran. In the busy internet world, typos are easy to forgive.
So far, so fine. But when I started to read the criticism itself, I was taken by surprise. Mr Moran writes:
Granted the books author; Johannes Nefastos, whom I believe is part of the "metal music" scene alongside his occult writing career, has injected some interesting concepts about death, necromancy and demonology, but the foundation of his satanic philosophy appears to be the same paper-thin ego-adoration that is the hallmark of the unintentionally hilarious "Church of Satan" founded by ex-circus performer Anton Lavey in the 1960s.
I must confess that this is a puzzling revelation, for I have a vivid recollection about myself writing exactly in the opposite way in Fosforos, i.e., renouncing the LaVeyan Satanism altogether:
Fosforos wrote:Likewise, we discard brutish egoism like that of LaVey and the Church of Satan which are not philosophy but only a way to express ignorance of the laws of the soul and spirit. The pseudo-Christianity of the church and the so-called Satanism of the hedonists are nothing but two blind eyes horrified of each other, oblivious of their own ignorance.
So here I can't but to take under consideration if my critic's "astral reading" of the forthcoming book have been somewhat lacking in detail or - God forbid - even misleading.
But as my respected critic says:
Now I'll confess I may well buy this book for my collection, but only as a comparative volume and collectors item. The days when I would actually bother to take the content of the book seriously are long gone.
I am greateful for mr Moran's indirect monetary assistance of my work, and hope many more readers - nay, collectors - for my books. May the mummified remains of the Philosophy of Oneness be plundered and trod upon for, as Paracelsus said, one can't make mummy dust without breaking a couple of mummies.