@BowsacNoodle @givenup @SuperLutheran 1. I would be interested, but I don't think I'll be swayed.
2. The way I see it, Christianity is in a catch-22. A more "pure" Chrisitanity, IMO would be too moralistic, theoretical and pacifistic, like Amish or Menonites, to bail the Eurosphere out of its current nonsense. A more "worldly" Christianity (like fag-beatin', gun-totin', bible-thumpin' protestants and heckin' based Crusader Catholics) would be too great of a corruption, too unstable and incoherent to gain traction. Like I said, Christianity, left to its own devices, tends more towards pacifism, cleanliness and poverty than blood, filth, and riches.

(And to top it off, the whites of today are so overcivilized and longhoused that a naturalistic Nietzchean or Racialist ideology would also never gain traction.)
It doesn't matter what the on-paper, abstract benefits are if the actual practice is weakning you (I believe Nietzche said this).

3. Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, obviously. Islam is more "vital" in having a pseudo-ethnic component to it. Buddhism is almost as old and has its own various sects/schools and established traditions, and the Japanese and Chinese don't seem as vulnerable to wokeness. In practice it's not so simple to convert (blood memory methinks).

4. You can't turn the clock back. Just as a famous Greek said, Monarchies degenerate into tyrannies, then to be replaced by Aristocracies, Oligarchies > Democracies > Mob rule > back to monarchy. Governance and cultures come in cycles, and the supposed benefits of one religion don't matter if its adherents don't have the means to impose it. It's why Christians are so buck-broken by rich Wokists despite being the majority of the religious populaiton.