London meeting 2025: a most controversial conference

A new ideological language, beyond the old left/right polarity, is required as the foundation of our future resistance to global tyranny.

That was the broad consensus that emerged from an important meeting in London, UK, on Saturday May 3, 2025.

But the occasion also showed that before this can be achieved, certain psychological barriers have to be overcome.

In her introduction to the all-day event, Emily Garcia of organisers Real Left (formerly Left Lockdown Sceptics) said this promised to be the dissident group’s most controversial conference to date – an assessment which was to be confirmed before the end of the day, as I will explain.

Garcia’s contribution also usefully reminded us of the stakes involved in our struggle.

In particular, she showed a slide, produced for the internal consumption of the ruling caste, outlining the many ways in which they are seeking to exert total control over us and our lives, with everything from sensors inside our bodies to digital geofencing of our movements.

She explained that in many ways this assault on our freedom is in plain sight – such as the laying-down everywhere of the fibre optic cables needed for the construction of the digital prison – but also hidden from view in that most of the public are completely unaware of the nefarious aims behind all this.

The purpose of the gathering was to try to bring together the anti-imperialist side of the freedom movement, opposed to the transhumanist agenda, with those focused on the pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist cause.

With this in mind, Garcia highlighted the major role played by Israel-linked businesses like Palantir and Faculty in the building of population surveillance and data-gathering systems under the guise of remote healthcare, including the massive mining of data during the Covid operation.

Also very relevant was her mention of Matthew Gould, once private secretary for foreign affairs to the Prime Minister, with both Rothschild-linked Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, a trustee of the zio-imperialist Rockefeller Foundation.

As Britain’s first Jewish ambassador to Israel, Gould set up the “UK-Israel Technologies Hub”. And he became the chief executive, for the duration of its operation, of NHSX , which in April 2020 commissioned NHS COVID-19, the notorious contact-tracking app.

Garcia remarked that those “conspiracy theorists” calling out the threat to our lives posed by the Fourth Industrial Revolution face exactly the same kind of censorship as those who dare to criticise Israel and Zionism.

She commented that the inextricable connections between Zionism and the digital New World Order suggest that we are looking at the “same multi-headed hydra”, against which our real struggle is therefore one of decolonisation.

Chris Rea of Real Left, presenting the morning’s Palestine Liberation panel, described the scamdemic moment in 2020 as announcing a new stage in the class war.

But despite the significant resistance to Covid fascism by workers such as the Italian dockers opposing the compulsory “Green Pass” (vaccine passport) and the Canadian truckers’ revolt, this mass insurgency was totally ignored by the mainstream “left”.

We need to build a broad resistance in our “extended struggle for freedom”, he said.

The first contributor to the panel was Chris Williamson, former Labour Party MP and now a deputy leader of the Workers Party of Britain, who warned of the power of the Zionist lobby.

He concluded his video message to the event by pointing out that the forces behind the slaughter of children, women and men in Palestine are the same as those oppressing the working people of Britain.

Yael Kahn, a London-based Israeli critic of Israel, did not make this connection in her talk.

She did, however, describe how she had been persecuted in the UK for her condemnation of what she calls “Nazi Israel” and warned of the Zionist “weaponisation” of anti-semitism smears – an observation whose accuracy found a strikingly ironical echo in a later intervention on her part.

Ang Swee gave a talk with slides, from her many years of helping the people of Palestine as a doctor, which reminded the conference of the utter barbarity of the Zionist entity’s activities.

Young Palestinian campaigner Yayha Abu Seido said the scale of the slaughter, which can justifiably be termed a genocide, has been reflected in the sheer numbers of family members being lost by exiles like himself – in his case some 170 relatives have been murdered by Israel since October 2023.

In the face of this he remains admirably positive, even optimistic.

He told the conference: “When you’re speaking for truth and justice, things will work out and people will wake up”.

Seido argued that the tide has now turned against the Zionist entity, with very little support for Israel in the UK. He added: “We have more power than we think we do”.

The afternoon session kicked off with a powerful video presentation from David A. Hughes describing an “omniwar” being waged against most of humanity.

He warned that a smart-city “gulag” is being constructed around us and identified lines of continuity between Nazi concentration camps, Palestine and the biopolitical prison camp now threatening our future freedom.

In his presentation, Piers Robinson focused on the strange positioning of much of the “left” and the “right” over two big issues of recent years – Covid and Palestine.

While the majority of the “left” remained silent about the assault on freedom launched under the pretext of the “pandemic”, many of those on the “right” who challenged that authoritarianism are now silent about Israel’s crimes, he said.

He displayed a Venn diagram showing a slender overlapping area representing those of us who support both our own domestic freedom and the freedom of people in Palestine.

A smaller part of that group consists of those who understand the connection between the two issues and the deep state entities involved in both.

Robinson (pictured) warned that behind all this has been “a profound concentration of power over a considerable period of time” – the corruption of our society and the “hollowing-out of institutions”.

We need to recognise these power sources, he said, and seeing the bigger picture allows us to overcome divide-and-rule strategies and avoid the pitfalls of a shallow, superficial, critique.

He agreed with a comment from Piers Corbyn, who told the gathering that we have to completely get rid of the left/right division.

Robinson said that we need a new vocabulary with which to frame the conflict between “elite networks” and the people, a new way of talking which does not fall into the left versus right trap.

Heather Brunskell-Evans provided a good example of the manner in which criticisms of the system are sectioned off and bound in by labels, in order to prevent the expression of a clear and holistic opposition to its domination in its entirety.

She described how her opposition to the transgender industry led to her being “cancelled” as a right-wing “transphobe” by the “left” and how she was subsequently rejected by anti-Woke but pro-Zionist circles as a left-wing pro-Palestinian.

I would add that the smearing of campaigner Jennifer Bilek as “anti-semitic” for having named those behind the transgender industry provides some additional context to this issue.

For my part, I explained to the conference how I have come to the conclusion, through years of intense research, that our society lies under the domination of a Rothschildian criminocracy that I have taken to calling the zio-imperialist mafia, ZIM for short.

I said that it is essential to recognise the reality of this entity and to build our new resistance not on the old “left” or “right” models but as a direct and specific opposition to ZIM.

The main thrust of this movement, I said, will be its commitment to real democracy – this being the essence of any anti-imperialist struggle, of any bid to wrest power from the hands of an external oppressor and restore it to the people itself.

This should be combined with a fight for cultural self-determination – the battle to preserve our own specificalities, diversities and autonomies from the globalist bulldozer – framed within a humanist, universalist vision that recognises our belonging to the human species as a whole and indeed to the natural world and to the cosmos.

I stressed that this outlook is opposed to all forms of bigotry and supremacism, not least Jewish supremacism, aka Zionism.

I explained that I am opposed to white supremacism for ethical, political and personal reasons.

However, black and brown people do not need to go through that thinking process to arrive at the same stance – it would be insane for them not to oppose a belief system that regards them as second-class citizens, as somehow less than human, as people whose lives matter less than those of the supremacists!

By the same token, I said, there are Jewish people who oppose Jewish supremacism (Zionism) for ethical, political and personal reasons.

But for those of us who are not Jewish, no such conscious decision is required – it would be insane for us not to oppose a belief system that regards us as second-class citizens, as somehow less than human, as people whose lives matter less than those of the supremacists…

What this means, I continued, is that we do not need to build, from scratch, a movement to convince people to oppose ZIM.

We simply need to expose its existence and activities and thus unleash the natural and inevitable opposition of the 99.8% of the world’s population who are not Jewish – a tsunami of revolt that will end Zionist domination for once and for all.

While this seemed to go down well with most present, Israeli activist Kahn was not happy.

She took the microphone at the start of the questions session to describe my naming of the Rothschilds and ZIM as an “anti-semitic trope”, directly accusing me of being “anti-semitic”.

She thus weaponised that all-too familiar smear to attack an opponent of Zionism – the very trick that she had earlier been warning us about.

Ignoring my assurance that I am not in the least “anti-semitic” and refusing to engage in reasoned discussion, she stormed out of the conference.

So there are clearly some important ideological taboos and blockages still to be overcome in the struggle against ZIM domination.

It is worth pointing out that other Jewish anti-Zionists in the audience did not share Kahn’s point of view.

However, I can’t help thinking that this self-righteous and all-too-common denunciation of all identification of, and opposition to, Jewish supremacism as “anti-semitic” is itself very much a reflection of the supremacism in question.

In a society in which it is perfectly acceptable, even obligatory, to oppose white supremacism, I do not see how it can justly be considered unacceptable, even forbidden, to oppose the Jewish variety – not least in view of the horrific suffering and the innocent lives at stake should we fail to defeat it.

[Audio version]