Sunday, September 7, 2014

Shocking Stats on Black-on-White Rape in USA

Keywords:  Interracial rape statistics, transracial rape statistics, mixed-race rape statistics, black on white rape, white on black rape, rape between the races, etc

The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States

Lawrence Auster, FrontPageMag, May 3, 2007

Like Ahab's search for the Great White Whale, liberals' search for the Great White Defendant is relentless and never-ending.  When, in 1988, Tawana Brawley's and Al Sharpton's then year-old spectacular charge that several white men including prosecutor Steven Pagones (whose name Brawley had picked out of a newspaper article) had abducted and raped the 15 year old was shown to be completely false, the Nation said it didn't matter, since the charges expressed the essential nature of white men's treatment of black women in this country. When the Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper last year, liberals everywhere treated the accusation as fact, because, just as with the Nation and Tawana Brawley, the rape charge seemed to the minds of liberals to reflect the true nature of oppressive racial and sexual relations in America. 
To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005. (Go to the linked document, and under "Victims and Offenders" download the pdf file for 2005.) 

In Table 42, entitled "Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender," we learn that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005.

(The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape.) In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally. 

The table does not gives statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear: 

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. 

What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man. 

The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course, to verified reports. According to the Wikipedia article on rape, as many as half of all rape charges nationally are determined by police and prosecutors to be false:
Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit, noted, "There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.... It's my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it's my job to prosecute the real thing."
No wonder there was such absolute belief in the guilt of the Duke students among the leading sectors of liberal America. A drug-addled, half-deranged, promiscuous black stripper accused three young white men of raping her. There are virtually zero rapes of black women by white men in the United States, and half of all rape charges against specific individuals turn out to be false. But in the gnostic, inverted world of liberal demonology, the white students had to be guilty. 

Meanwhile, in the real America, week after week, the newspapers report the rapes of white women by black men—though, of course, without ever once using the words, "a white woman was raped by black man." Just last week in the New York Post there was a story about a serial black rapist who invaded women's apartments on Manhattan's Upper West Side; you knew the rapist was black from a police drawing accompanying the story, and you knew the victims were most likely white from the neighborhoods where the attacks occurred.  But even when news media's reports of black on white rape make the race of the perpetrator evident (which the media only does in a minority of instances), no explicit reference is ever made to the racial aspect of the case. Each story of black on white rape is reported in isolation, not presented as part of a larger pattern. There is never the slightest mention of the fact that white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists. In the inverted world of liberalism, the phenomenon does not exist. 

Lawrence Auster is the author of Erasing America: The Politics of the Borderless Nation. He offers a traditionalist conservative perspective at View from the Right.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Statistics on race and welfare for the USA

There seem to be some misconceptions in the MSM about race and welfare in the United States.  For instance, you often hear it stated that more whites are on welfare than blacks.  After combing through the numbers, however, you find that the opposite is true.

The racial breakdown of the USA (2010 census) is:

63.7% White
16.4% Hispanic (presumably mostly mestizo or Amerindian)
12.6% Black

According to the national Office of Family Assistance, the racial breakdown of welfare recipients is:

Of those on welfare, 33.3% are black, 31.2% are white, and 28.8% are Hispanic.

So, clearly whites are drastically underrepresented in welfare recipients, while blacks and Hispanics are both overrepresented. Contrary to the illusion presented by the MSM, both in total numbers and proportionally more blacks are on welfare than whites.


A recent report (by CIS) shows that 74.7% of Mexican immigrants with children use some form of welfare in the USA.  (A racial breakdown of Mexicans is here.)

Camarota:  "Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children"

Peter Bradley:  "National Review Wrong (Again) on Race and Welfare"

Monday, March 19, 2012

Gender vs. Race: A Feminist Perspective

A great post [edited] from the list.  If only more feminists saw the big picture....

Gender vs. Race:  A Feminist Perspective

By Samantha Powers

The zeitgeist of the day groups many causes together -- feminism, minority rights, immigration advocacy, etc.  -- but this is a very loose coalition, with different parts often at odds with each other.  It's not so obvious that feminism, as it was traditionally understood, belongs in the same camp of the new post-left identity politics.

Not all races of women are the same and race cuts deeper than gender.

Feminism is a product of females of Northern European ancestry. As argued by the Roman historian Tacitus, Northern European women have always had more liberties.  This tend goes back thousands of years and there are probably sociobiological reasons for it, such as the particular type of monogamy that evolved among Northern Europeans.  But these liberties are under fire -- not from gun-toting white males from the South but from the hoards of Third World people coming to the United States.

The new multiracial empire forming in the United States will eventually and undoubtedly be hostile toward white women.  As noted by Brenda Walker, Third World immigration will hurt women.  Just look at the treatment of white women by blacks and mestizos.  Listen to some rap music or look at some crime statistics on Hispanics.  Or look at these statistics on interracial rape in the United States:

"In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man."

While short-sighted feminists have declared war upon Darwinism simply because it does not conform to political correctness, Darwinian insights can provide realistic survival goals for European females.  The first thing white females must realize is that race cuts deeper than gender.

A recent example. For all her talk of a "trans-racial feminism," Oprah Winfrey dropped the real feminist (Hillary Clinton) in a heartbeat to support her co-ethnic Barack Obama (who's a lukewarm feminist at best). As did nearly all other black women.  You see, non-whites are not as naive as whites when it comes to identity politics; whites too often believe in abstract universals (which works for mathematics) but can be detrimental when it comes to politics.

Another example that comes to mind is the OJ Simpson trial.  Feminist prosecutor Marcia Clark tried to pack the jury with white women, and Johnnie Cochran tried to pack it with black men.  They compromised with a jury of mostly black females.  Well, we know the end of that story.

In terms of IQ (intelligence), the IQ differences between genders is minimal and IQ largely tracks by race.  For instance, the average white female will have significantly higher IQ than both black males and black females.  Regarding trans-racial bonding, white females, intellectually, have very little in common with black females.  Why would we want to be grouped with them?

I could give many more examples of race trumping gender but  a greater insight is the realization that throughout human history nearly 90% or more of all wars have been ethnic conflicts of sorts.  Even many religious wars were truly ethno-religious wars.  History has yet to demonstrate a gender war.  The very idea that men and women would divide by gender and then attempt to exterminate each other is ridiculous from a Darwinian perspective because it would reduce everyone's inclusive fitness.  If "war is the great clarifier," as they say, then the very absence of armed "gender wars" clearly demonstrates the primacy of race over gender.

People sort by race.   They always have; they always will.  A white man and a white woman can pair up, have a child, and each will increase his or her inclusive fitness.  Not so with a white female and black female teaming up, for even if they adopted, say a "mixed-race (black-white) child, each female would be around 55x more closely related to her co-ethnics than to the adopted child.  Their inclusive fitness would be diminished."

Once again, race trumps gender.  A lesson that all feminists today need to learn.  A reality that Margaret Sanger knew very well but many feminists today seem to have forgotten.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Biological Problems with Mixed-Race Families, Marriages Relationships & Adoptions

Keywords:  Mixed-Race marriages, mixed-race relationships, Mixed-race children, Mixed-race child, problems, obstacles, Interracial Adoptions, Transracial Adoptions, Interracial Marriage, Multiracial Family, Endogamy, Exogamy, Biracial Children, Heterosis, Biracial Heritage, DNA, Adoptions, BiRacial, Black Adoption, Children, Divorce, DNA, Endogamy, Ethnicity, Interracial Family, Interracial Marriage, Marriages, Miscegenation, Mixed-Race, Problems, Race, Rate, Relationships, International Adoption Scam, International Adoption Racket, Evangelical Orphan Scam, Adoption Africa, Adoption China, Adoption India, etc.

Interesting article from list:

Biological Problems with Mixed-Race Families, Marriages, Relationships and Adoptions

By A. J.  Fisher, Jan. 14, 2011

As anyone familiar with the literature knows, mixed-race marriages and romantic relationships suffer many more problems than single-race marriages and romantic relationships.  For those familiar with human biodiversity (HBD) and sociobiology, this should come as no surprise.  In evolutionary terms, one could argue that mixed-race marriages are maladaptive in that they reduce a person's overall genetic fitness - i.e. passing on copies of one's own genes.  In a multiracial marriage or relationship, one is showing altruism toward a partner who shares fewer genes than a co-ethnic would share.  A parent will also share fewer genes with a multiracial child than with a same-race child.

It's natural for someone to prefer a partner of the same race, as this increases a person's Darwinian fitness. J. Philippe Rushton has noted:

"[P]eople maximize their inclusive fitness by marrying others similar to themselves...." 
In another article, Rushton notes:
"Studies of human marriages and friendships show that people choose each other on the basis of similarity, assorting on the most genetically influenced of a set of homogenous attributes.... Darwin's theory of evolution tells us that the ultimate reason for behavior, like morphology, is to enhance inclusive fitness."
Yet, while the vast majority of people are endogamous and marry within their own race, what about those who do not?  And what about those who have mixed-race children? Rushton has argued that the lower frequency of shared genes in racially mixed families might result in:  less intense bonding, greater conflict, and fewer children.  (There are also other problems, such as mixed-race children being unable to find organ or bone-marrow transplants.  More on that later.)

Part of the answer as to why this is so lies in genetic distances, as put forward by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza in Genes, Peoples, and Languages. Steve Sailer writes:
"Cavalli-Sforza's team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the "genetic distances" separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danish, and the Japanese 59 times greater. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish."
Using the genetic distances outlined above, let's look at two hypothetical multiracial marriages.

An English Man and a Japanese Woman:  As genetic distance figures above note, an English man would be around 59 times more closely related to a Dane than to his Japanese wife.

An English Female and a Black (Bantu) Father:  Using the genetic distance figures above, the distance even widens with a white-black relationship.  The English woman would be around 109 times more closely related to a Dane than to her black husband, and he would overwhelmingly be more closely related to his black co-ethnics than to his wife.

What of the mixed-race children? Parents in mixed-race relationships are not only genetically dissimilar to each other but they also have a much greater genetic distance from potential mixed-race children than from same-race children.  Regarding the individual's genetic investment in the second example above, Frank Salter (On Genetic Interests, pg. 261) writes:
"For a person of English ethnicity, choosing an English spouse over a Dane gains less than one percent fitness. But choosing an English spouse over a Bantu, one yields a fitness gain of 92 percent....  The same applies in reverse order, so that a Bantu who chooses another Bantu instead of someone of English ethnicity has 92% more of his or her genes in offspring as a result.  It is almost the equivalent to having twice the number of children with an English spouse.  Thus assortative mating by ethnicity can have large fitness benefits, the largest derived from choosing mates within geographic races."
In other words and general terms, a white mother will be almost as twice as closely related to a child with a white father versus a child with a black father.  Because same-race parents share more genes,  each parent is likely to see more of his or her genes in the offspring even if they are not passed on directly.  For example, if the father has gene X and doesn't pass it on directly to his son, there's a good chance his same-race spouse will have gene X and pass it on, so the son will indirectly possess the father's gene X.

Noting phenotype in mixed-race children, each parent would more closely resemble co-ethnics than their own child, especially the white mother, since whites tend to have recessive traits for appearance.  (A person only 1/16 black will often still have visible and prominent black features.)

And appearance does matter.  The fact that mixed-race children do not resemble the parents, esp. the fairer parent, seems to be an issue of concern, although not widely discussed.  In a candid letter about having a multiracial baby with a man from India, an English mother notes:

""She's getting very dark, isn't she?" This is what one of my friends recently said about my much adored - 12-week-old daughter. She didn't mean to be rude. But it was a comment that struck me with the force of a jab to the stomach. Immediately, I was overwhelmed by a confusion of emotions. I felt protective, insulted, worried, ashamed, guilty, all at once. The reason? My lovely, wriggly, smiley baby is mixed race..... The truth is, whatever the label, the fact there is a label proves that my daughter's conflicting parentage matters....But when I turn to the mirror in my bedroom to admire us together, I am shocked. She seems so alien. With her long, dark eyelashes and shiny, dark brown hair, she doesn't look anything like me. I know that concentrating on how my daughter looks is shallow. She is a person in her own right, not an accessory to me. But still, I can't shake off the feeling of unease. I didn't realise how much her looking different would matter and, on a rational level, I know it shouldn't. But it does. Evolution demands that we have children to pass on our genes, hence the sense of pride and validation we get when we see our features reappearing in the next generation. With my daughter, I don't have that....But self-flagellation is not useful. I have more pressing concerns. I am now the mother of a 'black' child, even if she is more the hue of weak tea than espresso.... When she was born, pale but with lots of dark hair, I asked the midwife if her eyes would stay blue. 'Asian genes are very strong,' she said in what I took to be an ominous tone. No more Brady Bunch kids for me. The midwife has been proved right and every day my baby's eyes get a little darker."

Since parents share fewer genes with mixed-race children, people involved in interracial marriages are short-changing their own genes, which might explain why people engaged in mixed-race relationships often tend to have lower mate value.   A recent survey found that white women who date black men tend to be fatter, dumber and more quarrelsome than average.

Given the very real problems with having mixed-race children (such as the fact that parents often feel estranged from children who do not resemble them and that the child will never fully identify with the ancestral traditions of the parents, esp. the lighter parent), it is unsurprising that mixed-race children suffer more problems of identity and health.  For instance, mixed-race people are less likely to survive organ transplants, especially bone marrow transplants.  In general, mixed-race people have more health problems. A study by J. Richard Udry notes:
"A new study that involved surveying 90,000 adolescent U.S. students showed that those who considered themselves to be of mixed race were more likely than others to suffer from depression, substance abuse, sleep problems and various aches and pains. Conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the National Institutes of Health, the investigation found that adolescents of mixed race were more likely to have other health problems as well."
In other words, an argument could be made that mixed-race families are maladaptive -- both for the parents and the children  -- and undermine one's genetic interests.   As noted by various commenters, multiracial families often do not possess the harmony, cooperation and purposefulness of same-race families, because mixed-race families lack the focus of genetic investment and returns that same-race families possess.

UpdateAdoption: Regarding transracial adoptions, the same logic would apply. For example, an English family that adopts a black child will be around 109 times more closely related to a random Dane than to their adopted child.  As a result, a harmonious congruence of the parents' and adopted child's ethnic genetic interests will be missing. The ethnic genetic interests of the parents and adopted child will often be at odds, creating a disharmonious family structure.

Update:  From email: "People who engage in transracial adoptions probably suffer from pathological altruism and ethnomasochism."

Further Reading:

"What Race Are Hispanics?"

Steve Sailer: "Ethnic Nepotism And The Reality Of Race"

Unamusement Park:  "Perils of Miscegenation"

Lawrence Auster: "The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States"

Peter Dodds: “International Adoption: In Whose Best Interest?

Chateau Heartiste: "The Truth About Mixed-Race Couples"

Kathryn Joyce:  "The Evangelical Orphan Scam"

Alfred Clark: "95% of White Americans Have No African Ancestry" and "Benefits of Hybrid Vigor Overstated"

Nancy Turner:  "Key Characteristics of White Trash"

Tracy McVeigh.  "UK:  Mixed-race children suffer more health problems than same-race children"

Some pieces people emailed addressing above topics from a religious perspective:

Generation5:  "A Christian Reconsiders Trans-Racial Adoption" (From religious perspective)

Nil Desperandum:  "Christian Ethics and Interracial Marriage" (From religious perspective)


Monday, September 26, 2011

What Race Are Hispanics?

Key words:  Are Hispanics White?  Racial Stratification, Racial Castes of Latin America, Mestizo, Mestizos, Mestiço, Métis, Marabou, Chicano, Latino, Indios, Castizos, Cholos, Mulattos, Zambos, Negros

What Race Are Hispanics?

By Thomas Carter
July 15, 2011

Regarding the recent census in the United States, there was much debate about the racial classification of 'Hispanics'.

Is 'Hispanic' a race?  In short, no.  'Hispanic' is a cultural designation but New World Hispanics can be broken down into racial categories, such as mestizo or Amerindian. 

Are New World Hispanics white?  Most often, no, they are not white.

Although the traditional meaning of 'Hispanic' related to those from Spain and  white Hispanics do exist in Latin America (esp. in Argentina), many of the Hispanics in the New World have little, or no, Spanish ancestry, especially those immigrating to the United States.

Since the unspoken purpose of the American census was to find out how many non-Westerners (i.e. non-whites) were living in the US, perhaps a better classification (as others have pointed out) would be:

MAMBs: mestizos, Amerindians, mulattos & blacks from Latin America.

Other than Argentina (and possibly Chile) much of Latin America and the Caribbean seems to be populated by MAMBs.

Most Latin American countries seem to have large percentages of non-Europeans.  For instance, Brazil is  almost 50% black / mulatto;  Columbia is 58% mestizo and 14% mulatto; and Guatemala is more than 90% Amerindian and mestizo.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, Mexico is:
60% mestizo
30% Amerindian
Less than 10% European (mostly Spaniard)

And what is the ancestry of mestizos? Examining genetic ancestral markers, Rubén Lisker found the average admixture of a lower-income mestizos in Mexico City to be:

59% Amerindian
34% European [mostly Spaniard]
and 6% black

As Richard Lynn points out in "Pigmentocracy: Racial Hierarchies in the Caribbean and Latin America," most Latin American countries seem to have an extremely small upper-class of Europeans, and below it very large masses of Amerindians, mestizos, mulattos and blacks.

And most of the people immigrating to the United States from Latin America are from the lower, non-European classes, especially from Mexico.

Furthermore, if you figure the average European or Diaspora European IQ to be around 102 - 103, it becomes apparent that MAMBs fall below.

Average black IQ: 75
Average mestizo IQ: 82

Average IQs of some Latin American countries:

Equador: 80
Guatemala: 79
Mexico: 87
Puerto Rico: 84

Because of this lower IQ immigration from Mexico, Latin America and elsewhere, Byron M. Roth, in The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature, estimates that

[The] average American IQ will decline from 98 to 95 by mid-century. This may seem a small drop, but it will have dire effects for elites, because the percentage of Americans with an IQ of at least 120 will fall from 7.1 to 4.8. [Summary by Lynn.]

It seems, in conclusion, that most New World Hispanics arriving in the United States vary by race (are MAMBs) but clearly are non-Western (i.e. are non-white, i.e. are non-Diaspora European) and probably fall below Westerners in intellectual ability.

[Data taken from Lynn's IQ and the Wealth of Nations, "Pigmentocracy: Racial Hierarchies in the Caribbean and Latin America," & "Whimper and a Bang"; Rushton's Race, Evolution & Behavior; Collin's "Immigration Externalities"; Lisker's "Racial admixture in a Mestizo population from Mexico City."]

Further Reading:

Hispanics:  A Statistical Portrait

Gregory Cochran:  "Zones of Thought"

Jason Collins:   "Immigration Externalities"

CIS: 74.7% of Mexican immigrants use some form of welfare in the USA

Faces of the World's Races 

Steve Sailer: "White v. Hispanic cognitive gap across 39 studies with 5,696,529 sample size," "Ortiz & Telles: Mexican-Americans lag for 4 generations (at least)," "How do Hispanics score on grad school admissions tests?," "64% of Hispanic high school graduates don't score high enough to enlist," and "PISA and Mexico."

Karol Estrada: “Is the Amerindian ancestry of Mexicans to blame for their record-high levels of diabetes and obesity?”

Alfred W. Clark:  "Mexico & Genetic Diversity: HBD on the cutting edge of science" and "95% of White Americans Have No African Ancestry"

James Thompson: "The United States of Mexico:  How Mexican Immigration Will Lower Average IQ of USA"


Dog IQ: How Smart is your Dog?

Here's a listing of dog IQs by breed.  Dogs have undergone artificial selection, so those selected for intelligence  (Border Collie) tend to be very smart, while those selected only for appearance tend not to be so smart.  It depends on what was being selected for.  A bloodhound typically has a low dog IQ (doesn't respond well to commands) but has undergone intense selection for smelling ability, so a bloodhound compensates for lack of command response with a keen sense of smell.

Many have argued that mutts tend to be around average intelligence, depending on their ancestry.  A mutt of high IQ ancestry (for example, a Border Collie, German Shepherd & Golden Retriever mix) will be smart, but a mutt of low IQ ancestry (for example, a Chow Chow, Basenji & Pekingese mix) will tend to be dumb.

A veterinarian reader tells me that most mutts today in urban areas are at least part pit bull terrier. Given that pit bulls have low dog IQs, this would mean that the average IQ of mutts would be on the lower end of the spectrum. (N.B. that pit bulls also have undergone recent heavy artificial selection for aggression, since they're often raised to fight.)

It should also be noted that pariah dogs (mutts in the wild that have reverted back to wolf-like characteristics) tend to have low average dog IQs, as by dog IQ one means a dog's responsiveness to human commands.  Mutts, left alone for multiple generations, will develop pariah traits and eventually will lose traits of domestication, which means their dog IQ will drop.

It should be noted, however, that what we think of as dog intelligence (response to commands) is not all that dog breeds underwent artificial selection for. For instance, breeds were selected for guarding, hunting, smelling, herding, appearance, etc., and each breed seems to have its own special abilities or appearance.  Breeds are important.  If dog breeds were to disappear and be transformed into a large class of mutts, we would lose the richness of canine biodiversity.

From The Intelligence of Dogs, by S. Coren

Ranks 1 to 10
Brightest Dogs

Understanding of New Commands: Less than 5 repetitions.
Obey First Command: 95% of the time or better.

Rank Breed
1 Border Collie
2 Poodle
3 German Shepherd
4 Golden Retriever
5 Doberman Pinscher
6 Shetland Sheepdog
7 Labrador Retriever
8 Papillon
9 Rottweiler
10 Australian Cattle Dog

Ranks 11 to 26
Excellent Working Dogs

Understanding of New Commands: 5 to 15 repetitions.
Obey First Command: 85% of the time or better.

Rank Breed
11 Welsh Corgi (Pembroke)
12 Miniature Schnauzer
13 English Springer Spaniel
14 Belgian Tervuren
15 Schipperke
Belgian Sheepdog
16 Collie
17 German Shorthaired Pointer
18 Flat-Coated Retriever
English Cocker Spaniel
Standard Schnauzer
19 Brittany
20 Cocker Spaniel
21 Weimaraner
22 Belgian Malinois
Bernese Mountain Dog
23 Pomeranian
24 Irish Water Spaniel
25 Vizsla
26 Cardigan Welsh Corgi

Ranks 27 to 39
Above Average Working Dogs

Understanding of New Commands: 15 to 25 repetitions.
Obey First Command: 70% of the time or better

Rank Breed
27 Chesapeake Bay Retriever
Yorkshire Terrier
28 Giant Schnauzer
29 Airedale Terrier
Bouvier Des Flandres
30 Border Terrier
31 Welsh Springer Spaniel
32 Manchester Terrier
33 Samoyed
34 Field Spaniel
Australian Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Gordon Setter
Bearded Collie
35 Cairn Terrier
Kerry Blue Terrier
Irish Setter
36 Norwegian Elkhound
37 Affenpincher
Silky Terrier
Miniature Pinscher
English Setter
Pharaoh Hound
Clumber Spaniel
38 Norwich Terrier
39 Dalmatian

Ranks 40 to 54
Average Working/Obedience Intelligence

Understanding of New Commands: 25 to 40 repetitions.
Obey First Command: 50% of the time or better.

Rank Breed
40 Soft-Coated Wheaten Terrier
Bedlington Terrier
Fox Terrier (Smooth)
41 Curly-Coated Retriever
Irish Wolfhound
42 Kuvasz
Australian Shepherd
43 Saluki
Finnish Spitz
44 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
German Wirehaired Pointer
Black & Tan Coonhound
American Water Spaniel
45 Siberian Husky
Bichon Frise
English Toy Spaniel
46 Tibetan Spaniel
Foxhound (English)
Foxhound (American)
Wirehaired Pointing Griffon
47 West Highland White Terrier
Scottish Deerhound
48 Boxer
Great Dane
49 Dachshund
Stafforshire Bull Terrier
50 Alaskan Malamute
51 Whippet
Chinese Shar-pei
Fox Terrier (Wire) 
52 Rhodesian Ridgeback
53 Ibizan Hound
Welsh Terrier
Irish Terrier
54 Boston Terrier

Ranks 55 to 69
Fair Working/Obedience Intelligence

Understanding of New Commands: 40 to 80 repetitions.
Obey First Command: 30% of the time or better.

Rank Breed
55 Skye Terrier
56 Norfolk Terrier
Sealyham Terrier
57 Pug
58 French Bulldog
59 Brussels Griffon
60 Italian Greyhound
61 Chinese Crested
62 Dandie Dinmont Terrier
Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen
Tibetan Terrier
Japanese Chin
Lakeland Terrier
63 Old English Sheepdog
64 Great Pyrenees
65 Scottish Terrier
Saint Bernard
66 Bull Terrier
67 Chihuahua
68 Lhasa Apso
69 Bullmastiff

Ranks 70 to 79
Lowest Degree of Working/Obedience Intelligence

Understanding of New Commands: 80 to 100 repetitions or more.
Obey First Command: 25% of the time or worse.

Rank Breed
70 Shih Tzu
71 Basset Hound
72 Mastiff
73 Pekingese
74 Bloodhound
75 Borzoi
76 Chow Chow
77 Bulldog
78 Basenji
79 Afghan Hound

Further reading:

Eccles & Mount:  "Cross-breed Dogs Have More Health Problems than Purebred Dogs"  (For "Pariah Dogs," see entry here.)

Clark:  "Benefits of Hybrid Vigor Overstated"