Jews have lived all around europe for centuries.

Lived and been subject to massacre for centuries and this well before ww2.

Honest question: has any empire (or powerful nation) ever been homogenous without genocide?

Japan? Their natives were few in numbers (less than 2%), so it can be considered a Homogenous nation.

That's a good example (if we ignore their attempted expansion). I guess being an island helps.

Is Japan considered an Empire (on the power/clout level, not how they nominally call their head of state) before expanding to Korea and Formosa? I don't think it is.

I think we can keep out immigrants who do not want to fit in without having to resort to genocide.

I think several millennia of European history show that they actually cannot do this without resorting to genocide. This has literally happened in Europe within my lifetime so forgive me if I ignore your unfounded assertions that 'this time' Europe will get it right.

How many centuries-to-millennia do Jews have to live in Europe before theyre viewed as having the same rights as all other Europeans, rather than being immigrants in need of assimilation?

If this is the baseline level of Othering involved in the thinking around this, you understand why people view this as an expression of anti-semitism. “Respect other people’s cultures and beliefs, unless they’re Jewish” isn’t a good look for the left wing.

Apartheid has been tried before. Like communism it doesn’t work out in practice the way the theory predicts.

You have it backwards: ethnic violence is more prevalent in diverse countries without boundaries separating different groups: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Look at ex-Yugoslavia. Is it not working out? Are the people worse off in their separate countries, than when they were genociding each-other under a common flag?

"Good fences make good neighbors" wasn't invented out of thin air.

People in Yugoslavia weren't genociding each other in regular times (outside of WW2 and the Yugoslav wars), there was just ethnic tension. Furthermore, present post-Yugoslav countries aren't homogenous, and there's still ethnic tensions there ( in Bosnia, or Serbia and Kosovo). I'm not sure "working out" is how I'd put it.

Interesting standard. So only genocides during "regular times" count? And as long as there are tensions, you can't say things are working out? Anything short of perfect harmony might as well be civil war and genocide?

Are you serious? I’m no social conservative, but labelling that as Nazism just degrades your own political capital.

People are allowed to expect immigrants to fit in.

But it's not just about immigrants. You also forbid people born in your country to develop other habits or change religion.

If a bunch of locals decide to bring back old slaughtering methods (or dealing with spouses or skipping judicial system to settle issues and so on), I'm pretty use that'd be banned in no time.

See also: the birth and growth of the Mormon religion in the US.

Well the homogenisation of society is a common aspect of fascist ideologies.

That would be like me calling every lefty a Marxist. It doesn't help.

At the core of every ideology - left and right - are some valid ideas - that is how it got adherents in the first place. A certain degree of social homogeneity is needed because it represents a shared basic idea about how civilization is to proceed.

Now, the Nazis enforced their extreme vision of absolute social homogeneity by means of death chambers... nobody in this thread suggested anything even hinting at that.