IMDB supports racist anti-semitic propaganda?

Hmm, I wonder how old you are. Views against Nazis and Nazi propaganda were even more censorious long before the late 20th/21st century. It's actually you who takes the liberal view that all speech is acceptable, when anyone with any sense of history knows that the kind of hate spouted by these films, and supported by the film's public reviewers (have you read some of them?), leads only to the prevention of free speech and truly free academic thinking. By the way, the view propounded in the film, that history is in the eye of the beholder, is the very post-modern relativism that you seem to dislike so much. And no, you are not evil; whether or not IMDb should associate with such films or not is simply a matter of opinion, on which we can agree to disagree (there are degrees of political thought--not everything is polarised to black and white). But if the basis of your argument is that you do actually support such Nazi hate, then yes, you are mighty evil.

"Spoken like a true lib!" -- for saying that someone is evil for being a Nazi? Are you a Nazi sympathiser? Sounds like it.

"You wish to cancel the listing. Another "Lib" opinion." -- No, I express my views to IMDb management. They will then listen to my views, and make a decision. That's called democracy.

"Another "lib" view on things." -- Do you believe that every issue is polarised? That's the problem with US politics now (and many other countries). Every issue is either black or white, lib or con, with nothing in-between.

I won't get into a flame war here, except to say that I respect decent conservatives who can discuss their views in a rational way, and who understand what Nazism represents and that any sign of it must be fought vigorously (in which fight many brave Americans and other nationals died--or do you think it was all a Jewish con?). From what you've said, I don't think you are one of them.

The presence of "hate" speech in a movie does not disqualify the movie from having an IMDb title page. It also does not matter who made a given movie. The filmmaker could be an active enemy agent, a terrorist, to the Western bloc (aka the United States) or Israel, whatever. That's not grounds for disqualification. Also, while IMDb may not quite be an indiscriminate repository of public information, it can be if it so chooses, and this is protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Yes, true indeed, that is a liberal stance, a classical liberal one from which social liberals (social democrats) have cowardly retreated, time and time again. So, conservatives (in the United States), at least some of them, try to hold onto this way. I also understand that government officials try to violate (and sometimes succeed at violating) the amendment in the name of national defense or the common good, but that is beside the point. We shall not allow things to return to the absurd way that they were during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's tenure as President of the United States. Likewise, we shall do what we can to avoid the emergence of the genocidal policies typical societies all throughout the history of mankind, in every nook-and-cranny of the world, the most memorable of which (the most shocking to Western sensitivities) transpiring less than a century ago.

I have always viewed IMDb as an  "indiscriminate repository of public information."

It makes absolutely NO difference as to who, what, when, where, why or how  a particular title has been produced.  It should just be about what IS.  

Personally and subjectively, psychologically and religiously, sociologically and philosophically, I could probably find something to object to in any title in the database.  But MY opinion is NOT what the overwhelming majority of the database is about.  Leave that to reviews and policy and issue discussions.  Objectivity -- and the truth, but not opinion -- and not feelings -- should be the goal.  

Also, we, the contributors and users, DO NOT control IMDb.  IMDb does.  Ultimately, it is their database, not ours.  We can make suggestions, but determinations are their's.  THEY own THEIR database.

Our contributions are gifts that we are "giving" to IMDb. Sometimes, those gifts are appreciated.  Other times, they are not.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

P.S. I have fought many a losing battle in discussions on this site, but the loss that still most grates on me -- subjectively, personally, etc. -- is the sexism in keywords!

Just to note, I didn't mean to imply that IMDb isn't an indiscriminate repository of crucial information about published movies, films and videos, and collections thereof, along with public information about people who are involved with published movies, or who are manager/agents of people who are. I definitely view IMDb as something very comprehensive to its purpose. Wikipedia is much more restrictive, but even the leading Wikipedians will mostly concede that anything that meets their general notability guideline absolutely ought to be mentioned in the encyclopedia in some way. Thus, for example, on both sites, there is an article for Triumph of the Will.