Gad Saad, Lebanese Evolutionary Behavioral Scientist & Author:

""The mindset in the Middle East is very simple. It is based on the Qur'anic concept of dhimmi status for all religious minorities who are "people of the book." Such people can at best be tolerated but they should NEVER be in a position in power whether within a country or within the Middle East. As such, Israel's existence violates a definitional and fundamental tenet of the mindset in the region. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with land; nothing to do with two states; nothing to do with other geopolitical realities. Islam is supreme. Islam can protect you as long as you know your place. Israel said NO! We have dignity; we have a right for self-autonomy. Ask yourself the following question: How are non-Muslim minorities faring throughout the Middle East? Yes, there are times when minorities are "tolerated" but the overlords reserve the right to exterminate you as they see fit. There is 1,400 years of that recorded history. Learn your history.""

Odin and the Terrible Horrible No good Very bad Jotun/aelfar

So, I see a lot of people talking about Odin’s treatment of Loki and Thor as though it’s all about the interpersonal family stuff, but this leaves out the dynastic side of the mess. And, as I will argue, it is impossible to understand his motivations without the throne.

Thor himself acknowledges this at the end of TDW when he talks about the perceived similarities between Loki and Odin and his own unfitness for rule.

Odin’s difficulties arise from his assumptions, made when both were babies, about how Thor and Loki would turn out. Odin’s views on other realms can be extrapolated from the narratives he constructs about Asgard’s wars, as presented at the beginnings of both Thor and TDW.

These are cookie cutter duplicates of each other with little variation outside of proper nouns. A brutish enemy threatens the greater Good. Asgard, led by a noble and wise king, defeats them and takes their weapon/cultural artifact which further seals their doom. This is a happy ending.

Thus, Asgardians are universally presented as noble and good with a paternalistic duty to manage the affairs of other realms, and if the other realms don’t realize that, then it is only further proof of their unworthiness. In this scheme of being, it would be “natural” for Thor to be exactly the genocidal tyrant his father and grandfather have been. Also to be expected would be Loki’s inability to compete on equal terms with Thor.

Neither son conforms to expectation. Loki is clever and calculating, using intelligence and magic to compensate for his slighter build. Thor doesn’t fully accept Asgardian cultural ideals. His closest friends include a female warrior, a Vanir warrior, his strange little brother, and two Asgardians who each have exceptionalities from the ideal, theoretically epitomized by Thor.

Let’s take a look at the first movie from the aspect of all of these political factors. Asgard must have political and military dominance in order for there to be peace according to the narrative Odin gives us. What is less obvious but no less present is that that dominance is to be expressed in the person of the Asgardian king. As Asgard is dominant over other realms, so her king is over all the people.

Thor not only disobeys the expressed wishes of his father, in so doing he undermined the authority of the king. In this analysis, Thor’s crime is not merely back talk, but a form of usurpation. His starting a war is not yet a privilege he should have access to, and starting it at that point merely serves to highlight the physical infirmity of the king.

While Thor is dealing with the consequences of having undermined his father’s authority, Loki is discovering his status as Other/non-Asgardian through his parentage. He immediately confronts Odin in the weapons vault to discover the underlying truth of his life. The story Odin spins contradicts itself, but Loki appears barely to notice, as he is making other connections rapidly.

Soon enough, he is ready to demand the base truth of the story -why? Odin’s answer at first seems to confuse the situation further, but in reality, contains the key to understanding Odin’s lie.

The initial story is that Loki, who is revealed to be the son of the frost giant king, Laufey, was abandoned in a temple to die, but was saved by the merciful benevolence of Odin. When asked to explain why, Odin asserts that he hoped to bring a lasting peace through Loki. The contradictions here are glaringly obvious: a child abandoned in a temple? One would typically assume a child, especially one of a king, left in a temple next to a precious artifact during a battle was not put there as an act of infanticide, but in order to protect him from the violence. An abandoned child whose parentage is clear? We are not shown any marks on the swaddling clothes and Loki’s skin markings do not closely resemble Laufey’s. An abandoned child who could be the key to a lasting peace? They were content enough before to let the child die. How does he suddenly gain prominence enough to be the lynchpin of a peace plan?

Asgard must have dominance, in order for there to be peace. So Loki, the lost prince of Jotunheim, is intended to be a puppet king, answering to the will of Asgard’s king. Once we realize that, we look again at the contradictions and realize they are all resolved if Loki was never abandoned. Huh, imagine that. Loki has also been told all his life that he was born to be a king. Adding all this together, the original plan was likely that after Thor was made heir and Loki’s promised throne was unavailable, Odin would lead a war to put Loki on the throne he was meant to occupy. The problems with this plan include Loki’s intelligence and independence. He is not malleable, and would become a rival instead of a puppet. Oops.

Loki is not being sentenced for the deaths of either frost giants or humans, whose lives to Odin are ultimately worthless, but for daring to destroy the Bifrost (yes the job was finished by Thor, but it had been crumbling under the forces brought to bear on Jotunheim) which diminishes Asgardian dominance. Also, he put himself in the position of possibly getting his hands on one of Asgard’s powerful toys. It didn’t matter when Red Skull had the tesseract because he couldn’t challenge Asgard’s preeminence. It mattered a lot when it might be Loki.

Sending Thor to retrieve the tesseract, no doubt after a year spent trying to undo Thor’s unseemly affection for lesser beings such as humans and frost giants, allows him an acceptable way to both prove his prowess in war and to further cement the lessons in Loki’s inferiority.

Leading us to the latest film where Odin’s prejudice and desire for power are more obvious and the ways that plays out. I think part of the plan in depriving Loki of touch was indeed to drive him to psychosis, thus robbing him of his most powerful weapon, his mind, and completing the picture of a mindless frost giant that Loki had never been.

✨🍬✨Adorable, lively, and the most humanized - Loki Laufeyson.

Sooo I saw concept arts done for Loki in Thor Ragnarok (on @aleksibriclot instagram) and decided to draw Loki in one of those outfits.

“I am Loki, of Asgard and I am burdened with glorious purpose.”

God...

Happy Birthday, TVA Loki !

The first episode of Loki premiered 2 years ago, on June 6th 2021.

The Avengers movies would have been a lot cooler if Loki was a part of the Avengers and he should have never died in the first five minutes of Infinity War and he should’ve had more time with Thor and met the other Avengers and he should’ve gotten a second chance

LOKI LOOKING AT ASGARD (FAN ART)

Art by:

https://www.deviantart.com/ladymintleaf/art/Loki-looking-at-Asgard-405232753