American Renaissance is published by the New Century Foundation, a 501(c)3 educational nonprofit organization. Therefore, any will, or other legal document, should refer to “New Century Foundation” rather than “American Renaissance.”
Any gift by will or bequest to New Century Foundation is completely deductible for estate-tax purposes.
Here are several ways to support the foundation through a charitable bequest. We strongly advise using the language we have provided below. We realize the controversial nature of our work, and using the correct language will better ensure that your bequest is carried out faithfully.
- A specific bequest of a stated dollar amount or specific securities: “I give to the New Century Foundation., a non-profit organization located at PO Box 527, Oakton, VA 22124, federal tax ID number 61-6212159, the sum of ____ dollars (or describe the specific property or security you intend to give), to be used in such a manner as its directors shall decide.“
- After you have made specific bequests, what is left in your estate is called the “residue.” A residual bequest grants that residue or a portion of it to the New Century Foundation: “I give to the New Century Foundation., a non-profit organization located at PO Box 527, Oakton, VA 22124, federal tax ID number 61-6212159, all (or ____ percent) of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal property of whatever kind and wheresoever situated, to be used in such a manner as its directors shall decide.“
- A contingent bequest is made when one or more of your bequests cannot be fulfilled. This is usually because a beneficiary in you will has died: “If any of the above-named beneficiaries should predecease me, I hereby give his/her share of my estate to the New Century Foundation., a non-profit organization located at PO Box 527, Oakton, VA 22124, federal tax ID number 61-6212159, to be used in such a manner as its directors shall decide.“
- A life income bequest leaves income to someone close to you, with the principal that produces that income passing on to the New Century Foundation after that person died. Bequests of this kind can be complex and should be drafted by a lawyer.
Here are further recommendations for writing your will:
- Include this phrase: “I am not unmindful nor under undue influence.” This protects against dishonest people claiming you were feeble-minded or pressured into writing your will as you did.
- Make copies of your will. If a will is not found, it is considered revoked. We advise making one copy for every recipient in your will, and sending it to them. Also make a copy and keep it in a safety deposit box.
You should always consult a lawyer and/or a tax advisor when drawing up or revising your will to ensure your intentions are carried out properly.
Gifts By Life Insurance
If you cannot leave us in your will for any reason, you make the New Century Foundation the beneficiary of any life insurance policy you have.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call our office at (703) 716-0900 or email our Director of Special Projects, Chris Roberts, at: [email protected].
Here is a guide to wills written by white advocate, Sam Dickson.
All too many whites are childless. Having escaped the financial burdens imposed by children, if they exercise reasonable financial acumen, they have a better than average chance of accumulating a sizable estate. Eventually the time will come when these well-to-do or moderately well-to-do individuals will write their wills.
At least a few of may stop and consider that in a sense their race is their family, since they have had no children of their own. They may feel, as I do, that some special act on their part is called for to compensate for their failure to reproduce.
Why should committed whites leave their estates to distant relatives who share none of their racial commitments? Why should they help subsidize institutions and colleges (often their alma maters) which have fallen into equalitarian or minority hands, and for years have used their educational resources to denigrate and demean Western culture? Should not the last act of a dying person reflect his or her most deeply held convictions?
While particularly appropriate for the childless white who has no direct heirs, this all-important “last act” should also be taken by whites with substantial financial assets who have children, but who can still afford to make a bequest, even though it may be small in comparison with his or her entire estate.
There are basically two forms of bequests that should be considered by people about to write or rewrite their wills. First, and most obvious, is the direct gift in money, stocks or other assets. The second consists of items of intrinsic value such as books, pamphlets and records, even libraries. Whoever possesses literature of a special value to the white cause should see that it is preserved and placed in the hands of those who can put it to the best use.
Several years ago I met an outstanding white activist. Advanced in years, she now lives in seclusion surrounded by her vast collection of irreplaceable books, newspapers and records, accumulated over half a century of searching for reasons for the decline of her people. Such an archive is now virtually nonexistent, since most of them were systematically destroyed or thrown away in the hysteria and repression that followed America’s entry into World War II.
It would be tragic if such valuable records passed into the hands of relatives who view them as worthless junk and who would probably destroy them in the course of administering the estate.
How to Avoid Challenges
Whites who want to make bequests to white causes should prudently and carefully draw their wills so as to anticipate and forestall challenges. A number of significant legacies and bequests of this type have been overturned because of a lack of foresight. For instance, an American multimillionaire left a fortune in Chilean minerals to the British nationalist journal, Candour. His relatives, aided by minority lawyers, quickly and easily overturned the will, and Candour received nothing.
Here are a few ways a wary testator (person writing a will) can defeat or discourage challenges:
First, he should realize the foolishness of incorporating racist credos or other statements in his will. He should understand that any blatant or controversial statements will immediately tip off leftist and minority group members who will then try to have the will set aside. Many liberals actually view a respect for one’s race as a form of mental illness. Any racial statement appearing in a will may be taken as prima facie evidence that the testator was deranged or incompetent. For this reason, the bequest should be worded in terse, subdued, standard legal language, omitting any ideological remarks or allusions. The testator should never include such a statement as: “In order to perpetuate my Iifelong opposition to the dangers presented to this country by blacks, Mexicans, and Indians and to promote the welfare of the white race, I give and bequeath the sum of $10,000 to the Anglo-Saxon Federation, Inc.”
Instead, the will should simply read, “I give and bequeath the sum of $10,000 to the Anglo-Saxon Federation, Inc., to be used in such a manner as its directors shall decide.”
The testator should always anticipate that his relatives may challenge the will unless it is carefully worded to discourage any contest. Since money motivates even the best of us, it is unwise to indulge in the illusion that our relatives and heirs at law will not attempt to challenge a will if a successful challenge will bring them financial gain.
To forestall the contesting of a will, it is necessary to understand something about how such contests come about. Wills may be caveated (the legal term for contesting or challenging) only by those with proper qualifications. This means that in most cases wills are challenged by the heirs at law. Who is an heir at law? This depends on the laws of the particular state in which the testator resides. Before a will is written the laws of one’s state must be carefully checked to find out who exactly qualifies as an heir at law. Basically, a person’s heirs at law are his spouse and children. An unmarried person’s heirs at law are his parents, brothers and sisters. Nephews and nieces of a deceased brother or sister inherit in the place of their deceased parent. If the testator has no wife, children, brothers, sisters or parents living, then his grandparents and any aunts and uncles and their offspring become his heirs at law.
Wills are usually challenged on two grounds: (1) undue influence, (2) incompetency. Undue influence is influence that prevents the testator and his natural heirs from enjoying a normal affection and prevents the testator from expressing his true intent. For example, the son who persuades his mother to move into his house and then intercepts letters and phone calls from a sister so that she will lose her mother’s favor and perhaps be disinherited is exerting undue influence.
The greatest source of danger for the testator who wants to aid organizations or individuals who share his beliefs is the challenge based on incompetency. The usual form of challenge on these grounds is that the bequest demonstrates the testator to be mentally incompetent, because only a mentally incompetent person in this era of berserk equalitarianism and liberalism would prefer his own kind over another ethnic group or would wish to support an organization or person publicly advocating racial differences. This type of attack is certain to become more successful as the country’s demographic complexion darkens. Attorneys representing non-whites and hostile whites will be quick to set such wills aside. For example, there has been an attempt by various Jewish organizations to overturn the will of a Jew who left $25,000 to the PLO.
In my own law practice I was once engaged by the heirs of a Palestinian who died intestate (leaving no will) in New York. A hostile judge appointed a swarm of minority lawyers as administrators and guardians with the result that every cent of the Arab’s small estate was eventually depleted in the form of attorney fees. The judge found nothing amiss in all this and denied my objections on behalf of the heirs. With this example in mind, it is not difficult to predict what would happen to a will that contained even the slightest suggestion of “racism.”
In Terrorem Clause
A will, as previously stated, can be challenged only by an heir at law. The general public does not have the right of challenge. One effective means of reducing the possibility of challenges is to leave the heirs at law a fair and equitable portion of the estate and to write into the will what is known as an in terrorem clause. This provides that anyone who challenges the will and who is unsuccessful in his challenge will lose everything he would have inherited under the will. Below is a typical in terrorem clause, which I have used successfully for a few of my own clients:
It is my wish and I do hereby direct that if any legatee or legatees named in my will shall contest this my last will and testament in any court, or if they or anyone of them shall aid or encourage any other person in the contest of this will, he, she or they shall forfeit all interest in my estate and the legacies given them shall be forfeited and become a part of my residuary estate. I do not anticipate, nor have I any reason to anticipate, that any legatee provided for in this my last will and testament will contest same, but I make this provision so that there will be no contention or litigation over any matter relating to my estate or the disposition of the property of my estate as set out in this my last will and testament, which I deem to be just and equitable.
Obviously such a clause will have no deterrent effect if the heir is left out of the will completely. If an heir stands to receive nothing at all, then he has every reason to challenge the will.
As to disinheriting wayward heirs, I am afraid I must sound a discouraging note. We have all read of parents writing straying offspring out of their wills — an all-too-human attempt to in one last lick at some obnoxious relative. Alas, the white testator with the best interests of his race at heart must forget this idea. A disinherited heir at law is an heir at law who will have everything to gain and nothing to lose by challenging the will. The strategy, then, is to include all your heirs at law in your will and add an in terrorem clause. Since we live in a legal environment hostile to our ideas, we cannot expect to leave all of our estate to further the Majority cause, even if we so desire. Those who wish to leave us money and those who wish to receive it must be content with a reasonable amount.
It is up to the testator to determine what proportion of his estate should be left to the heirs in order to make a challenge or series of challenges not worth the risk of losing more than the challengers would gain, not worth the risk of paying out more in legal fees than they could possibly win even in a favorable outcome. Perhaps I can best explain how a prudent person would dispose of his estate by giving the facts of my own situation.
My heirs, provided both my parents die before I do, would be my two brothers. One is an avowed Marxist who has been commissioned by a large foundation to draw up a program to eradicate racial and religious bigotry in America. It is clear that he would be delighted to challenge my will to head off any pro-Majority bequest. However, he has one vulnerable point. Although he loves Lenin, he loves money even more, perhaps because he has never been able to accumulate much of it.
I bequeathed this particular brother a substantial inheritance in my will, but an amount less than he is legally entitled to by law. I am relying on the in terrorem clause to scare him away from any challenge. Since he would receive one-half of my estate if I died intestate, I have left him one-third.
This means that my Marxist sibling will be confronted with a choice of taking his third under the will or placing himself in jeopardy of losing out altogether by filing a challenge and losing. If his challenge should be successful, he will take one-half of the estate, minus his legal fees and expenses. I anticipate that, after weighing the odds, he will settle for one-third. As for my second brother, who shares some of my ideas, I know he will be quite content with his one-third share and will have no objection to my bequest of the remaining third to a pro-white organization.
The white testator should name an independent executor under his will, preferably a capable, trusted and honest lawyer (a few such still exist). The reason is that the will must be defended by the executor. A lawyer named as executor will have a direct pecuniary interest in sustaining the will against any and all challenges because he wants to get his fee for administering the estate. A relative and heir as an executor might be tempted to give up or compromise rather than fight a challenge to the bitter end. The lawyer-executor has another good reason for doing his best to defend the will. He is entitled by law to a small percentage of the estate, which he would lose if the will were overturned.
Some Majority members may fear adverse publicity as a result of their bequest. They should be reassured that only rarely is any publicity attached to the probate and administration of estates. There will almost certainly be no publicity at all if the will is written so as to minimize the possibility of a challenge.
Those sensitive souls who, for one reason or another, still cannot bring themselves to make a bequest to the defenders of their people, might investigate the idea of a small life insurance policy, naming some white activist as the beneficiary.
To sum up, a white person who leaves a properly drawn will benefiting one or more members of his extended racial family or benefiting some white activist group will have the comfort of knowing that even if he hasn’t done as much in his lifetime as he would have liked, he will be fighting the good fight for many years after his death.