In the contemporary JEM we will discover an interesting phenomenon. Jewish artist naming characters intended as Jews by names deriving from Karl and Frank or Franklin. The meanings of the names naturally contain the answer to this phenomenon.
In the Scandinavian languages, Karl shares a root with the noun churl. There it meant “freeman.” In the Old English, it would mean more simply “man” though more specifically “husband.” Eventually it would mean “non-servile peasant.” The churl was understood as the lowest rank of freeman ostensibly epitomizing the opposite of nobility or royalty.
In the English language, the word churl itself would, by the 19th century, come to mean a loutish, rude or surly person and the word carries that sense today. One perhaps relevant myth appearing in the Poetic Edda, describes Odin, disguised as a figure named Rig, fathering the three classes of men, Earl, Karl and Thrall.
Hence, in another sense, the churl might be understood, in his origin, as a sort of nascent middle class, between nobility and slave. In fact, parallels certainly can be drawn between Noah’s children of Japheth, understood as the Aryan, Shem, understood as the Jew or proto-Jew, and Ham, understood as fathering Canaan who is destine to be servant to both Japheth and Shem. We’ll remember as well the Hebrew Bible prophesies indicate that Japheth will eventually live in the tents of Shem, clearly then, at that point, understood as vassal.
As Shem, Karl might be understood as the second born in this myth as well, which, again, is a Jewish identifier in JEM as the broader study reveals. Names meaning “noble” appear as Aryan identifiers in the JEM as this study explores. Thus there may emerge a notion of Jews appearing not merely as a second appearing or second arriving class but one that is second class in terms of an initial status vis-a-vis a founding Aryan stock.
The name Frank or Franklin carries the same meaning as Karl if perhaps with deeper connotations. It too means “free” or “freeman.” The name Franklin in particular is derived from the Anglo-Norman word fraunclein. It described a free landowner not of noble birth. Here with Frank or Franklin there is a stronger sense of not merely freedom but of privilege.
Indeed, the term franchise meaning “a privilege of a public nature conferred on an individual, group, or company by a government” also finds its origin in the Old French term franc or “free.” Of course, the root here is ultimately tied to the “Germanic” tribe of the Franks. Here we understand the “Germanic” tribe of the Franks developing as a privileged, untaxed and ruling minority while the native Gallo-Romans, ostensibly a distinct race to one degree or another, were subjected to more oppressive laws.
Eventually the Franks would develop into the Carolingian Empire, gaining dominance over continental Europe and through this dominance, ensuring the Christianization of Europe. Indeed, relevant to our discussion, the Carolingian Empire, named for its eponymous founder Charles Martel, is etymologically linked to Karl. Charlemagne or Charles the Great, Martel’s famous grandson, is known by two epithets that appear saliently in JEM as Jewish identifiers. This is, of course, the name Charles, a form of Karl, and the title “The Great.”
It should be interesting to us that a name meaning “freeman,” and understood as designating something as distinct from nobility, whether on the continent or on the British Isles, appeared in the statesman and military leader Charles Martel. Here names, we surmise, of which men were proud, were chosen less casually than they are now and with a greater sense of their meaning.
How striking and interesting it is as well that Martel “the hammer,” named for a Vulcanian or Thor-like symbol, should, like the Spartan 300, be given almost solitary credit for saving Western Europe in the caducean struggle between Christianity and Islam. Here perhaps with Martel we find a “Sammael” or defender of “Edom.” One is, after all, obliged to be also on the winning side.
For the purposes of our discussion, it is, of course, useful as well to point out that Jews, to the extent they appeared distinctly, did, indeed, frequently enjoy a privileged status among the Franks. Regarding Charlemagne’s reign historian Alessandro Barbero writes:
“Jewish merchants prospered under Charlemagne and even more under Louis the Pious, by supplying the court with wine, spices, and textiles, and they enjoyed wide-ranging privileges. These included the right to be tried only in accordance with their own law, to have Christian employees, and to practice their religion even within the Imperial palace.” 
Thus what is suggested by the appearance of these references to “Karl” and “Frank” in JEM? Is it merely to suggest that Jews are “freemen” especially relative to the benighted, rigid or morally uptight Aryans among whom they abide? Does it suggest an understanding that Jews became “Free men” especially by the ascent of the Franks, whom again, would Christianize Europe?
Or is the suggestion here that Jews were deeply intermarried within the Frankish nobility, that, indeed, the Franks were effectively Jews at their root and core. Certainly the instructive parables around Samuel, Saul, Jonathan and David, as we’ve decoded them, reveal a clear Jewish strategy for the admixing and subsuming of monarchy if not also financially or politically powerful families more generally.
The appearance of a Semitic character in the salient Jewish film series the Matrix, married to a figure name Persephone and simply named “the Merovingian,” seems also to suggest a Jewish esoteric belief in the Franks as a Jewish dynasty. We will encounter in the JEM, as well, characters intended as Jews, named Louis, which, in context, will appear to be a reference to the first Christian Frankish king Clovis. We will also encounter the apparent Jewish esoteric belief that Robert the Bruce was a Jewish king. Hence, this interpretation of the use of Frank and Karl in JEM as intended to suggest the crypto-Jewishness of the nobility of the Franks seems entirely valid.
Indeed, perhaps supporting this Jewish esotericist belief we find that the Franks appeared to have developed a mythical Trojan ancestor, descending from King Priam himself. This is not to imply, of course, that Troy, or any meaningful civilization, was Semitic in its origin. According to the myth, Troy or Tros, Troy’s eponymous founder, was fathered by Jupiter if through the Semitic daughter of Atlas, Electra. It is, though, to imply that these inserted Trojan primogenitors may be intended to represent a residual Semitized, wayfaring element.
Indeed, this inserted Trojan ancestry will repeat a pattern found throughout Europe, appearing often from Christians or Christian priests. For example, we find in Great Britain, the 9th Century Welsh Monk Nennius inserting Brutus of Troy as the founder of Britain. The Christian Icelandic Merchant Snorri Sturluson will likewise posit Troy as the Asgard or homeland of Odin and the Aesir.
Yet even in Rome, this effort appears to develop with the Trojan Aeneas, whom is inserted as the ancestor of even the eponymous Romulus, a figure whose Aryan bona fides, as described, seem quite strong. Indeed, all of these Trojan primogenitors appear, in my estimation, as efforts to develop a Semitic primogenitureship.
For the Franks in particular it gets even worse. If the Trojan Francio descended of Priam is not their primogenitor it is “the Quinotaur,” a mythical sea beast appearing in the 7th century Frankish Chronicle of Fredegar. There it is referred to as “bestea Neptuni Quinotauri similis” or “the beast of Neptune that resembles a Quniotaur.” It is a “bull with five horns.” This is a Semitic beast.
Indeed, it may well be a reference to one of the “bulls of Crete,” especially the bull provided by Neptune for Pasiphaë to mate, thereby producing the Minotaur. This is distinct from the bull form that Aryan God Jupiter assumes in the myth as this study explicates. The five horns as well are suspiciously numerological.
The number five, as it has developed, is commonly a reference to the Hamsa or the blinding of enemies in numerology and the thieving of the “eye” also an Aryan vaginal symbol. Thus we see, again, how Interpretatio Romana levels utterly any stupid “nationalistic” pretense against unifying the Aryan race, on a global level, under the common ancestor of Apollo.
It is perhaps meaningful that according to the Jewish parenting webzine Kveller, the name Charlotte is an especially popular name for Jewish female babies. Citing a poll on namberry.com, the webzine lists it as the most popular name for Jewish female babies in 2017. Charlotte, of course, is a derivative of Karl. Of course actual naming practices among Jews, while doubtlessly influenced to a degree by religious leaders –some of whom are doubtlessly tuned into JEM– is much more haphazard versus the meticulous naming practices in JEM, whether appearing in Religion or Art.
There is another dimension here worth considering as it concerns references to the Franks and Churls in contemporary JEM. Names deriving from Mars, such as Mark or Martin, or names that are references to the Roman patrician class, such as Patrick, commonly appear among Aryan figures in contemporary JEM. In some cases they are contrasted directly with characters intended as Jewish bearing the name Karl or one of its derivatives. We will encounter such examples in the JEM we review such as with the adversarial figures of Cain Marko and Charles Xavier.
Indeed, between the names Karl and Mars, in all their various forms, we find near synonyms, as both names might be understood to mean “man.” This is commonly how they are used in the JEM. Yet, of course, in the first instance, with forms of the name Karl, we find a Jewish man, in the second instance, with forms of the name Mars, we find an Aryan man.
Similarly the name Frank or Karl, as appearing in JEM, highlights a contrast between a Christianizing Frankish world and an older classical Roman world. Thus implied in these references as well is a notion that finds frequent expression in JEM generally. To wit, Christendom liberated and empowered the Jew, making him a “free” man. Perhaps it is time we recognize this as well.
The term Churl might be too abrasive when referring to Jews, particularly as they adjust to a changing world. I recommend we use the name “Charlie” as yet another name to refer to Jews. Indeed, the term works on two levels. After all, it is understood Jews, in general, had a profound sympathy for the suffering Vietcong during the Vietnam war period, hence, doubtlessly, they will find the light, jocular term especially honoring. And again, out of our native goodness we are obliged only to refer to Jews by terms they also use to refer to themselves, if, in some cases, only esoterically.
 The comic book characters Carol Ferris, Charles Xavier and Sgt. Rock or Sgt. Franklin “Frank” John Rock are three typical examples.
 The name Patrick, meaning “noble” or “patrician” is a typical one. Kauffman’s character Patrick Wentz appearing in the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one example covered in the broader study.
 Alessandro Barbero, Allan Cameron (Trans.), 2004, ‘Charlemagne: Father of a Continent’, 1st Edition, University of California Press: Berkeley, p. 69
 Stan Lee’s Iceman, one of the original X-men, whose alias is Robert Louis “Bobby” Drake is one example. He is a Jewish figure as the broader study explicates. The appearance of Louis in his name though is made more meaningful by his relationship to X-men leader Charles Xavier, another Jewish figure, with whom we find the Frankish naming motif.
 Stan Lee’s Incredible Hulk, Bruce Banner, and Bill Finger’s Batman, Bruce Wayne, or examples of references to Robert the Bruce as a Jewish figure as this study explicates.