An ethnie only actually needs ancestor worship and race worship, since those reinforce the rational side of ethnonationalism. Anything else, like morality, needs to be grounded in pure reason to avoid its discarding in the event that the 'religion' itself is discarded by some foolish generation at a later time. As many safeguards need to be added to the new social order to ensure that no such unraveling occurs, e.g., explicitly racial constitutions or other foundational documents of the new society. It should be assumed that future generations will quite rapidly seek to undo whatever it is that we achieve, just as the generations preceding ours and including our own have quite rapidly undone what our ancestors have achieved. We should assume that the next generations will be total idiots as these preceding ones have been, who will squander everything, and continue from this worst case scenario.

This is why the Burkean social contract is superior to the Rousseauian social contract. Burke's social contract acknowledges that there is a pact between the dead, the living and the unborn, whereas Rousseau only acknowledges one of those three: the pact between the living. It so happens that the pact between the living is the most useless one of the three for us, but not for the enemy, for whom it is the only one that matters.

The living have a pact with the dead: To ensure that the things that they created continue on and are not undone. Because the West does not acknowledge a pact with the dead, we see absolutely zero problem with handing over our ancestors' accomplishments to others despite the fact that such a handing over would to them seem to be impossible: something that in their time could only happen via coercion.

The living also have a pact with the unborn. Again, because the West does not acknowledge a pact with them, either, we see absolutely zero problem with condemning them to a third-world existence as marginalized minorities within their own homelands. Instead, we go through a number of processes: denial (it isn't really our homeland, it belongs to everyone and/or they won't actually live as marginalized minorities, etc.) or justifications (future Whites deserve it because of the real or presumed actions of past Whites, nobody I know will be around to see it so I don't really care, etc.).

Just reconstruct an explicitly racialist Paganism complete with the kind of ancestor worship that still goes on in places like Indonesia (because of how weak Islam is there: the overwhelming majority of Indonesian 'Muslims' have synthesized Islam with their indigenous beliefs in a way that Islam has been largely been wiped out in all but name) and in historical places like pre-Islamic Iran where ancestor worship went on until it became haram.

Lastly, religions that place great emphasis upon souls have the potential for great harm, simply because they are an obvious pathway to egalitarian nonsense like 'judge by the content of one's character (i.e. mind or soul) and not by colour (i.e. body or gene)'. But the belief that souls are unequal along racial lines is practically unverifiable (how can you measure what you cannot even see?), whereas the belief that bodies/genes are unequal along racial lines is very easy when egalitarianism is absent, and was indeed widely held throughout the overwhelming majority of human history. Basically, a more physicalist worldview is required (I'm a physicalist-leaning dualist, moving ever-further in the physicalist direction, far away from the kind of metaphysical idealism of the likes of Berkeley or Kastrup, that Keith Woods has dangerously entertained). It is also why NatSoc > Fascism. The Fascist (and Evolian) worldview downplays the body/gene, and thus provides an obvious pathway back to egalitarianism. Base nothing of immense importance on the metaphysical, only use the metaphysical to reinforce the rational (e.g. use ancestor worship to cement an ethnonationalism already solidly argued for using pure reason). Indeed, I call for a new culture rather than a new religion per se.

Lastly, all the Socratic stuff like Neoplatonism falls afoul of what I have said above: the necessity of the rejection of any creed that places the soul over body/metaphysical over physical. A biological 'Master Race' is far more convincing than an unverifiable notion of being 'God's Chosen' as the Jews peddle. Belief in the latter is only useful for those inferior peoples who would fail miserably if they were judged by the standards of the former, but who feels the need to argue for the supremacy of his soul if he is already superior in his gene?

Wasn't it Nietzsche who believed that that was exactly why Socratic philosophy began? Because Socrates himself was inferior in body and gene, he created the slave morality that instead prioritized souls so that those who were inferior could believe themselves equal or even superior, i.e. by simply changing the rules of the game such that appearances now mislead and the 'real' value of a person lies in something hidden and unverifiable? This is why we have egalitarianism: because we seldom judge the worth of men on anything ascriptive, we assume all men to be blank slates of equal worth... precisely because of all these wretched philosophers.