One of the obvious way to "free Assange" is to kidnap him from custody, say, during transfer to court or to airport if he will be extradicted or some other way.
But looking into different comment sections and social media I didn't find a single post with such proposal.
Same thing with jailed J6s, or any other persons wrongfully (from the supporters point of view) detained.
Only "call your representative", "protest near some gov building", "share this video", "lets crowdfund best lawyer" and so on. In the most extreme case it is something like "we will use our guns if they come for us".
Interesting, that there was same thing with Navalny, here f.e. Nobody of his supporters ever proposed or tried anything about real disobedience. Even theoretically. Fuck, nobody even proposed to just bribe him out of jail, which was not something impossible taking in account millions of $ his supporters collect and received from NGOs and curators.
But there was a lot of proposals in social media in Russia to forcefully take out of jail prisoners like colonel Kvachkov or other jailed patriots. AFAIK, there even was one real attempt to free one russian nationalist, but court moved date, so ambush got nothing, was exposed, but guys was lucky to flee, so security measures was strengthened.
Also, there was very strange (for me) videos when bus with Navalny supportes, arrested during protests in 2021, occasionally stuck on roadside during transfer of arrested to the place of 15-day detention, and arrested helped to push it from the roadside dirt, and then willingly get back on board. There was only two guards and driver for 20-30 people. None even tried to somehow resist.
At the same time, in 1993 during failed attempt to defeat Yeltsin when he illegaly seize power from Russian Parliament which was highest authority in the country, people fighting on the side of Parliament arrested by police who obey Yeltsin, just seize police buses when amount of people collected in bus become larger than amount of policemen. This busses then used for barricades around parliament building and seized police equipment distributed among Parliament defenders. Being there, done that, survived without any consequences. Things ended badly with shooting Parliament building from tanks by Yeltsin forces and shooting at people by snipers from roofs, including roof of US embassy, but that ability of people to stand against malicious authorities is undisputable fact.
So, why, civilian "western leaned" rebels or sympathizers not only show absolute obedience to the authorities, but even theoretically never propose anything that could be accounted as civil unrest or active resistance with the goal to really "free Assange" from hands of obviously evil authorities? Is it some kind of faith in justice system or something?
Even taking in account that kidnapping is not very realistic, it at least not less realistic than that some politician or judge will pay any attention to vox populi somehow. There are lot of people who support Assange out there and want him free. Just out of statistic there should be at least some calls for taking Assange out of custody forcefully. But I don't see even three-letter-agency provocateurs proposing this. Like it is some global taboo for everybody.
Why is that? There should be some reason for such difference.
He was kidnapped, out of the Ecuadorian embassy back in 2016. A few at the time even claim to have watched it live on webcam in the middle of the night. Since then we can presume he's either been in a black site or more likely dead. Not a whisper of a rumor--real or fake--has come along since then of his actual status.
If anyone's suspicions were aroused over him being "too sick" to attend his latest trial--even via webcam--you have your explanation.
Interesting.
But then why his current supporters, unaware of that, do not propose kidnap him from this UK court, from jail, in transit? Just as virtue signalling, I'm not even talking about any actions, just about social media talks.
From my point of view it is just impossible that such obvious options didn't come to mind to noticeable percentage of Assange supporters.
It really is an interesting point you bring up. There's sort of a parallel question which is: for all the hate directed towards various public figures, why hasn't anyone taken them out, or even suggested it in a less than joking way?
On one branch, you have liberals that detest Trump, and think that if he's reelected that will be the end of Western civilization or some such. I know they hate guns, but how has there never been a public assassination attempt? They sure are loony and violent enough, right?
On the other branch, so many awakened people are aware of the murderous outrages of Hillary and Gates and Fauci, etc,, yet no one has ever tried to take them out either. And these sentiments are supposedly held by the people that are gun nuts, too.
There are two general answers, I think. One s that people are victims of learned helplessness and too pussified to actually take any action. I would say, sure, that's part of the cause of what we see.
The other is that we're seeing real human nature, and properly functioning humans find violence abhorrent. They are repulsed by the idea, even when under lethal threat.
So I would summarize by saying, yes, tons of Assange supporters are just virtue signalling, but beneath that, there are many people that are still relying--rightly or wrongly--on all the various social institutions we have created over the centuries to peacefully resolve disputes.
A guy named Jeff Cooper said it in a bit of a different way, but when the time comes when a man has to leave his house and take direct action, it's a form of suicide to all that he had been up to that point.
Yes, that too. But I think that intention to save somebody still have higher moral position, than doing harm due to hate.
I could understand why physical implementation of hate (even in form of throwing rotten tomatoes) could be condemned in society, so at least people will hide such thoughts.
But with saving somebody from evil, I can't find any reason why it could be absent in social media.
Yes, this is important factor.
But saving one of your own is an instinct, and it is in the core than human nature. That's what make me puzzled.
I think this could be the main reason. And it explain differences between West and Russia. We don't rely on social institutions as much as West, for the good or bad, so forcefully saving brother-in-arms from corrupted social institution is just one of the options. But that changes here too, into that full reliance.
Not shure that tendency for relying on social institutions is a good thing. It is like a damaged immune system, when some disease could attack you and you have no any backup plan.
Interesting, that eliminating corruption create more trust in social institutions, so people rely on them more and more, and then lose that ability to fight back against them. And when corruption back again, there nothing people could do.
Indeed, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
the real world isn't a spy thriller.
but please, go ahead. put together a team and do it! make sure to include a sexy French woman, a Scottish engineer and at least one black guy. the German IT specialist might rat you out though.
And it equally isn't an MSM painted free and democratic utopia where vox populi means anything.
I account this dream team from blockbuster movie more real than putting together uncorrupted court, honest politicians not obeying three-letter agencies and all that freedom and democracy crap by MSM.
Proposal for taking out Assange from custody by force is not less real than some politicians and judges doing what voters will ask them to do, not that their masters and deep state agencies want.
Both proposals are equally ridiculous. But for some unknown for me reason I see only one ridiculous proposal, but not other.
That is the question. Not feasibility of one of another proposal.