kings indian defense vs london

I'm 2000 in blitz

Meh, who cares about opening

I just choose to wing it

In the opening, I choose to confuse my opponent by playing moves that are weird

I confuse myself in the process, but I achive the task

You probably won't care, cos your 800 elo

Knowing how to play the King's Indian well should be enough. The London setup isn't effective against it. Otherwise it would be a main line against the KID.

I agree. The London system is only playable against KID. That's why I'm looking for some kind of refutation for it.

go for e5, play c6, put a queen on c7 or e7, play a5-b5, or maybe even go for f5 and e4

The London was actually invented as a black defence against white's openings involving g3: particularly Nf3, g3, Bg2, 0-0 sort of stuff. It's solid for black, so it would be solid for white against the KID: but when the roles are reversed and you're playing against the KID and you look at a book on Indian defences; well, against the Grunfeld a sort of d4 c4 Bf4 e3 Nf3 kind of thing is a main line. Maybe a bit hard for white to play accurately but it's quite good. However, against the KID, you won't find a London setup listed as a normal main line because it's completely unambitious. The KID player will use the Bf4 as a target and find some way to exploit it.

Against best play, black can't get an edge at all but I think that most people using the London want a quiet life and a KID player will use the Bf4 to bounce pieces and throw everything at the K-side if white castles 0-0.