MR BLOBBY

MR BLOBBY circulates as a name in modern chaos-magick material and has no entry in any historical catalogue, grimoire, or demonological list that can be traced. Nothing is known about who coined it, what it was originally for, or whether the name ever belonged to a practice older than the videos and forum threads that use it. This article treats it strictly as a label for a protective construct and declines to invent a biography for it. What can be examined is the framework underneath: a banishing structure that descends directly from nineteenth-century initiatory material, a protection method that can be written down and inspected, and a set of honest limits on what any of it claims to do.

No catalogue entry for this name

Search the historical record and you find nothing. MR BLOBBY does not appear in the Ars Goetia, the Pseudepigrapha, Lemuria, Conjuratio Ben-Maimon, the Agrippa trilogy, or any of the Grimoirs. It is absent from Crowley's works, from the Golden Dawn initiatory papers, and from the published output of every ceremonial order with a documented paper trail. A name that turns up only in recent practice material has a recent origin, whatever its user intends.

That fact does not make the working worthless. Sigils are language, and a language can be invented for a purpose and used effectively without inheriting anything. It does mean that any claim about this name's antiquity is decoration. Where you see a biography attached to it, that biography was written after the fact and should be read as fiction. The useful question is not who MR BLOBBY was, but whether the structure attached to the name produces a result you can observe.

Where the banishing structure comes from

The default Western banishing is the Lesser Banishing of Ritual in its Golden Dawn initiatory form, and it has been the default since the nineteenth century. It is a short piece of spoken text performed while walking a defined path, usually to a door and back, while describing the edges of a space as declared and closed. Its authority comes from repetition inside an initiatory context rather than from any claim about the words themselves.

Because it is public and initiatory, this form is now used by traditions with no connection to Golden Dawn practice whatsoever. The words survive the loss of the initiatory setting and get deployed as general-purpose hygiene. That is the honest status of the ritual: a provenanced piece of language with a long history of use, no longer dependent on the context that produced it, and carrying no obligation to the order it came from.

Banishing, cleansing, and grounding are three jobs

Modern writers increasingly separate three activities that older material blurred. Banishing removes. You declare something out of a space and close the boundary behind it. Cleansing purifies. You sweep or wash a space of accumulated influence without necessarily naming a target. Grounding re-establishes your own footing, which is a personal practice rather than a spatial one and has nothing to do with the room you are standing in.

Keeping them apart fixes a lot of muddled practice. People who perform a banishing and then feel unsettled often notice that what they wanted was grounding, and people who feel invaded in a shared building can address the boundary with a banishing while leaving the purity question to a cleanse. Mixing them into one long ceremony tends to produce a feeling of having done something without a clear sense of what changed.

Why the traditional form walks you to the door

The movement is functional, not decorative. Walking establishes the boundary as a route rather than a concept, and it gives the practitioner a physical anchor for attention at the moment the words are spoken. Every serious tradition that specifies a banishing also specifies rising from the ground or moving deliberately, and the reason is that posture and motion change how much of the declaration actually lands.

The route also gives the ritual a natural end, which reduces the tendency to keep performing it. A ritual you can finish in four minutes is easier to repeat than one with no terminus, and repetition is the variable that correlates with whether this kind of practice does anything. Standing still in the centre of a room reciting forever is the version people abandon by the third attempt.

The boundary argument, without the combat framing

The classic explanation is that a banishing declares a boundary in language that any hostile intelligence would recognise and comply with. Nothing in that sentence requires you to be the stronger party. The declaration is a statement about the terms of a space, addressed to whatever might be inside it, and the wager is that compliance is cheaper than confrontation for both sides.

Drop the combat language and the practice gets more defensible, not less. Once you are not casting yourself as a contestant, there is no way for the ritual to produce a loss, and no reason to escalate when nothing escalates. A boundary you are entitled to set is a cleaner instrument than a fight you might lose. Most experienced practitioners arrived at exactly this framing independently.

Building a protective sigil you can inspect

A protection sigil made with a generator is a compression of a statement of intent into a minimal glyph, and the useful part is the statement you wrote before the reduction. Write the protection in plain language first, with a subject and an object, because a phrase like protection on its own is too vague to charge and too vague to check afterwards. Then reduce the letters, build the figure, and keep the written original next to it.

The figure is not the load-bearing element. The written statement is. This matters when a generated sigil turns out to be aesthetically disappointing, which happens often, because you can always rebuild from the phrase. Practitioners who get attached to a particular glyph and then try to work without being able to state what it is have inverted the priority. Keep the phrase, treat the drawing as a handle for it.

The cleanse pass, and what it actually removes

A cleanse is usually a sweep of a room with a declared intention and a stated end point, followed by an opening of a window or a door and an acknowledgement that what was there has been let out. The traditional forms name salt, smoke, and water, and they work on the same principle: a physical action performed slowly over a defined area, with attention on the area rather than on yourself.

What this removes is worth stating plainly. It reliably removes your own sense that a space is heavy, and it reliably gives you a defined end to a period of worry about that space. Those are modest effects and they are not nothing. It does not reliably alter what other people brought into a room, and expecting it to is how cleanse rituals get turned into disputes with housemates.

Working in a space other people share

A banishing you perform alone in your own home is a private act with no audience. The same act performed in a shared flat becomes a statement to other people, and if they did not ask for it the statement lands badly regardless of your intent. Ask first, say what you are doing and why, and accept a refusal. The practice survives being declined; the relationship may not.

Where consent is impossible, restrict the scope to your own person and your own possessions. A personal clearing, a cleansing of your own room, a grounding practice, none of these impose anything on anyone else. This is also the more defensible position generally, since a ritual that depends on other people not knowing about it is a ritual carrying a hidden cost you have not agreed to pay.

Reversing something you sent out

Reversal is a different operation from banishing and deserves its own protocol. The usual structure is to declare the same boundary in the opposite direction, to return rather than expel, and to name what is being withdrawn. Where a banishing closes a door, a reversal opens one and specifies who is walking through it and in what condition.

Whether you need one depends on what you did. Most people who perform reversals have sent out a working they now regret, usually after results they did not expect. Rather than building an elaborate unhex, the simpler move is to state plainly what you no longer consent to and then do nothing further. Consent withdrawal is the mechanism most of this material actually relies on, whatever the surrounding ceremony suggests.

What a shield working can and cannot do

A shield working is a statement of what you will not accept, and it operates on your own responses more reliably than on anything external. Used consistently it tends to make the practitioner slower to be rattled, more careful about what agrees to, and more explicit about limits. Those are behavioural changes, they are measurable in ordinary life, and they are the honest yield of this material.

It does not stop another person from lying to you, does not prevent illness, and does not produce a detectable shield in the physical world. Anyone promising otherwise is selling. The framing that survives scrutiny is the psychological one, in which the sigil functions as a written reminder of your own limits, revisited on a schedule, in a form you chose rather than one assigned to you.

Protocol length and repetition schedule

A workable banishing takes between four and eight minutes including the movement. A workable cleanse of a single room takes fifteen to twenty. A sigil charge, if you do it separately, takes another ten minutes of focused attention. Anything substantially longer than that is usually elaboration, and elaboration is where consistency gets lost. Build the shortest version that covers the job and keep it short.

On schedule, opinion divides between daily and weekly, and the honest answer is that neither matters much. What matters is that the practice stays alive enough to be usable when you are unsettled, because that is the only time it will be reached for. A four-minute version you have done thirty times is worth more than an elaborate one you abandoned in the second week.

Recording outcomes so the practice stays honest

Write down the date, the version you used, the state you were in, and what you noticed afterwards, in three or four lines. This is the same discipline that makes dream work, sigil work, and divination verifiable, and it is the only thing standing between a ritual practice and self-confirmation. Without a record, the mind supplies its own evidence after the fact with remarkable speed.

After a few months the log becomes useful in a specific way. You discover whether you reach for it before or after the situation has escalated, whether particular versions of the protocol actually get finished, and whether the results you describe cluster around real changes in your behaviour or around changes in your mood on the day. That question is the one worth asking, and you cannot answer it from memory.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is MR BLOBBY and where does it come from?

MR BLOBBY has no entry in any historical catalogue, grimoire, or demonological list. It appears in modern chaos-magick material and nowhere older. Any biography attached to the name was written after the fact and should be read as invention. What can still be examined is the protective structure built around it, which descends from ordinary nineteenth-century banishing practice.

What is the difference between banishing and cleansing?

Banishing removes a named presence and closes the boundary behind it, usually with a spoken declaration and a physical route through the space. Cleansing purifies an area without necessarily naming a target, usually with a slow sweep and an act of opening. Grounding is a third thing entirely, personal rather than spatial, and it re-establishes your own footing.

How often should I repeat a banishing ritual?

Daily and weekly are both defensible, and the difference between them rarely changes the outcome. The variable that actually decides whether this practice is available to you is whether the version you built is short enough to complete on a bad day. Aim for four to eight minutes and repeat that on whatever schedule you can sustain without it becoming a burden.

Can a protective sigil be reversed if I change my mind?

A reversal declares the same boundary in the opposite direction, returns rather than expels, and names what is being withdrawn. In practice most people who seek reversals have sent out a working they regret, and the simplest effective move is to state plainly what you no longer consent to and then stop. Consent withdrawal is the mechanism doing the work behind most of this ceremony.

Does banishing work on other people in the house?

Work performed in a shared space becomes a statement to everyone else, so ask first and explain what you are doing. If consent is not available, keep the scope to yourself: a personal clearing, a cleanse of your own room, or a grounding practice imposes nothing on anyone. A ritual that relies on other people not knowing about it carries a hidden cost.