"The Fascism of the Twenty Years from 1922 until 1943 was monarchical. On the significance and dignity of the monarchy there exist explicit and unambiguous statements by Mussolini that allow the establishment of a connection between the monarchical principle and the new dignity claimed for the state by Fascism, as well as between Fascism and the principle of stability and continuity by which Mussolini sometimes referred to the state, while at others, more vaguely and mythologically, to the 'stock'. To quote him, Mussolini defined the monarchy in terms of 'a supreme synthesis of national values' and 'a fundamental element of national unity'. Republican tendencies (largely in sympathy with socialist ones) were present in Fascism before the March on Rome in October 1922. If eliminating these tendencies should be considered an essential aspect of the process of purifying, dignifying, and 'Romanising' Fascism, we have to conceive the return to republicanism of the second Fascism, the Fascism of the Salò Republic, which preferred to proclaim itself 'social', almost in terms of those regressions due to trauma that are often observed by psychopathology. Mussolini's legitimate resentment, and the human, contingent and dramatic factors that acted in those circumstances, can also be adequately acknowledged, but they cannot show in other terms the nature of the phenomenon, if we hold to the level of pure political and institutional values. Therefore, from our point of view, in this respect there is nothing to be gathered from the Fascism of the Italian Social Republic.

Originally Mussolini did not 'seize' power, but received it from the King, and under the conformist institutional garb of entrusting the government to him there was the equivalent of a sort of completely legal investiture."

- Julius Evola, Fascism and Tradition

"It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep."

- Benito Mussolini

"This "justification by faith alone" and the ensuing condemnation of the power of "works" led Luther to attack the monastic life and the ascetical life, which he called "vain and hopeless," thus deterring Western man from pursuing those residual possibilities of reintegration available in the contemplative life that Catholicism had preserved and that had produced figures like Bernard of Clairvaux, Jan van Ruysbroeck, Bonaventure, and Meister Eckhart." - Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World

Luther’s rejection of Monasticism is one of his gravest errors. Monasticism played a very important part in shaping the Middle Ages through producing many of the era’s greatest figures which is why the rejection of it had disastrous consequences for Christianity in countries like Prussia and England.

Trying to find meaning in the duality of the titans and gods within a modern understanding leads to certain errors.

First, it must be remembered that the traditional view is one of an eternal reality lacking the modern notion of a linear progression. Therefore the Greeks' theogeny does not tell a story of successive generations each replacing the last, but explains the principles which wax and wane in a cyclical fashion. Chronos/Saturn as King of the Primordial empire does not make the Golden Age defined by titanism but rather one ruled by a titan who mirrors the order established by his father Uranus. For Zeus to later defeat Chronos and establish the rule of the Olympians is the same phenomenon (thus Apollo now rules primordial Hyperborea).

Second is the consequential moral judgement linking all titans to the 'titanism' symbolic of their corrupted state. For Chronos to usurp Uranus only to be usurped himself does not represent a moral cause being progressively realized but the assertion and re-assertion of the same principle of Uranic, Solar order. The titans are then not a damned generation defined by an inherent corruption, but one part of a whole. The relationship between the titans and gods is not unlike that of the so-called Apollonian and Dionysian duality. One is not ultimately preeminent over the other, even if one rules over the other in a particular point of the cycle.

Lastly then, on the other hand, the Olympian symbol is itself not a perfected form. The Olympian hero is as much a hero as that of the titanic or 'Luciferian' (or Promethean) hero. A beggar cannot become a King simply by killing one and wearing his crown; a King is only ordained from above by God. That Chronos is King of the Golden Age is thus no mistake on the part of God and a hint towards the power to be found in the titanic symbol. Zeus' reign in this age too is no mistake. Therefore in this age defined by its defeat of titanism, the path of Olympian heroism represents the renewal of this victory over titanic corruption and acts to actualize the Uranic order that has ordained the Olympians. However, it may be good to remember that the Olympian principle is not self-sustaining and contains a propensity for its own faults, perhaps those that Nietzsche saw in his 'Apollonian' principle.

In the end there are higher principles to be found in the relationships within these supposed dualities. Titan and god are unified under the Uranic order which both express.

Leo X's pet elephant Hanno, 1514/16, after a lost drawing by Raffael

Under his pontificate, Latin Christianity assumed a pagan, Greco-Roman character, which, passing from art into manners, gives to this epoch a strange complexion. Crimes for the moment disappeared, to give place to vices; but to charming vices, vices in good taste, such as those indulged in by Alcibiades and sung by Catullus. - Alexandre Dumas

David Hume, while claiming that Leo was too intelligent to believe in Catholic doctrine, conceded that he was "one of the most illustrious princes that ever sat on the papal throne. Humane, beneficent, generous, affable; the patron of every art, and friend of every virtue".

Martin Luther himself testified:

Indeed, the published opinion of so many great men and the repute of your blameless life are too widely famed and too much reverenced throughout the world to be assailed by any man, of however great name, or by any arts. I am not so foolish to attack one whom everybody praises ...

'Sir,' saith the hermit to Messire Gawain, 'The damsel will say her pleasure. May God defend King Arthur, for his father made me knight. Now am I priest, and in this hermitage ever sithence that I came hither have I served King Fisherman by the will of Our Lord and His commandment, and all they that serve him do well partake of his reward, for the place of his most holy service is a refuge so sweet that unto him that hath been there a year, it seemeth to have been but a month for the holiness of the place and of himself, and for the sweetness of his castle wherein have I oftentimes done service in the chapel where the Holy Graal appeareth. Therefore is it that I and all that serve him are so youthful of seeming.' 'Sir,' saith Messire Gawain, 'By what way may a man go to his castle?' 'Sir,' saith the hermit, 'None may teach you the way, save the will of God lead you therein. And would you fain go thither?' 'Sir,' saith Messire Gawain, 'It is the most wish that I have.' 'Sir,' saith the hermit, 'Now God give you grace and courage to the question that the others to whom the Graal hath appeared would ask not, whereof have many mischances sithence befallen much people.' ~ The High History of the Holy Graal

When Parsifal has overcome Klingsor’s knights and put them to flight, he strays into the Flowermaiden garden. Klingsor calls on the seductive sorceress Kundry to seek young Parsifal out and seduce him. Parsifal then finds himself in a beautiful garden, full of flowers, and surrounded by the beautiful and seductive Flowermaidens. They call him and entwine their bodies around him in their efforts to seduce him, but he resists their temptations and remains chaste.

Rochegrosse shows this event in an unusual mixture of styles, with which he felt he expressed the central idea of the scene, that of Parsifal resisting temptation by being “obsessed with the ideal”. There are elements of symbolism in pictorial elements, but the whole painting is realist, with some Impressionist effects in the garden and landscape.
From eclecticlight.co

Christianity is too often considered to have caused the death of Rome when in reality it was responsible for doubling its lifespan—and this isn't referring to the Eastern Roman Empire, but the Holy Roman Empire. The ideal of Rome, the one which functioned as a sacred center towards which many iterations of the empire (some simultaneously) oriented and structured themselves, was practically seamlessly adopted by the Goths who invaded the Western Empire and the later Merovingian Franks and then the Carolingians who created the Holy Roman Empire in that sacred image of Rome. It is the very preservation of the essential Romanity which afforded the Middle Ages their greatness, and Christianity was central to this phenomenon. Christianity converted the Germanic tribes into Roman Empires.