You have any actual understanding of the border, have you ever walked along part of it? Been in one of those hospitals we are talking about?

You are a bit slow, aren't you?

For your utopia to work your system has to have no leader, otherwise your utopia is flawed as at least one has more rights than the other...

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or an understanding of both sides of the issue.

Actually that's because as soon as shit hits the fan, left wing (which means nothing) will start to claim that is right wing (which means also nothing).
Left wing doesn't see Kim Jong-un as left, nor Maduro.

All of that is wrong because when applied to God, prove the existence of an even higher being, the creator of God, which would be proof that not even god is God.  

The problem of the creator of God is the controversy regarding the hypothetical cause responsible for the existence of God, presuming God exists. A common challenge to theistic propositions of a creator deity as a necessary first-cause explanation for the universe is the question: "Who created God?". It contests the proposition that the universe cannot exist without a creator by asserting that the creator of the universe must have the same restrictions. This, in turn, may lead to a problem of infinite regress wherein each newly presumed creator of a creator is itself presumed to have its own creator.

This is what I've heard too.

When credit cards came my parents told me that this has been the fulfillment of that verse. However, technology keeps on innovating day by day and the one that I believed was the microchip implanted to the wrist or forehead.

With crypto's today, it's not yet widely accepted so I doubt it.

For the mark of the beast, there's one idea that I've heard before that it was going to be another religion.

"Viruses of the Mind" is an essay by British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, first published in the book Dennett and His Critics: Demystifying Mind (1993). Dawkins originally wrote the essay in 1991 and delivered it as a Voltaire Lecture on 6 November 1992 at the Conway Hall Humanist Centre. The essay discusses how religion can be viewed as a meme, an idea previously expressed by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976). Dawkins analyzes the propagation of religious ideas and behaviors as a memetic virus, analogous to how biological and computer viruses spread.

Dawkins defines the "symptoms" of being infected by the "virus of religion", providing examples for most of them, and tries to define a connection between the elements of religion and its survival value (invoking Zahavi's handicap principle of sexual selection, applied to believers of a religion). Dawkins also describes religious beliefs as "mind-parasites", and as "gangs [that] will come to constitute a package, which may be sufficiently stable to deserve a collective name such as Roman Catholicism ... or ... component parts to a single virus".

Dawkins suggests that religious belief in the "faith-sufferer" typically shows the following elements:

    It is impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, the believer feels as totally compelling and convincing.
    The believer typically makes a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakable, despite it not being based upon evidence.
    There is a conviction that "mystery", per se, is a good thing; the belief that it is not a virtue to solve mysteries but to enjoy them and revel in their insolubility.
    There may be intolerant behaviour towards perceived rival faiths, in extreme cases even the killing of opponents or advocating of their deaths. Believers may be similarly violent in disposition towards apostates or heretics, even if those espouse only a slightly different version of the faith.
    The particular convictions that the believer holds, while having nothing to do with evidence, are likely to resemble those of the believer's parents.
    If the believer is one of the rare exceptions who follows a different religion from his parents, the explanation may be cultural transmission from a charismatic individual.
    The internal sensations of the 'faith-sufferer' may be reminiscent of those more ordinarily associated with sexual love.

Dawkins stresses his claim that religious beliefs do not spread as a result of evidence in their support, but typically by cultural transmission, in most cases from parents or from charismatic individuals. He refers to this as involving "epidemiology, not evidence". Further Dawkins distinguishes this process from the spread of scientific ideas, which, he suggests, is constrained by the requirement to conform with certain virtues of standard methodology: "testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on". He points out that faith "spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues".

Even if it's not, per definition, wrong for communism to have leaders, not even they're bad or good, it however means the end for your "egalitarian society" as that one is over the others.

As long as you have a communist leader you've a "primum inter pares", one whose decisions count more than the others... Or none of your utopian communism if you will.

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

I think what you are looking for is Buddism, less the supernatural BS.  Do not harm others, control your urges, etc.

I am more of an animalist myself.  I used to hunt, which I regret to this day.  When you kill a sentient being, part of you dies with it.

I always lived below my means, did not need to have the latest greatest toys, retired early, so I guess maybe I am a Buddist LOL.

What annoys me the most about religions is their supernatural claims and their moral standard or lack thereof.

I think of Fascism more as the opposition of Liberalism (European Liberalism, not be confused with US flavor), rather than communism.

The only way to have communism as you portrait it is by direct democracy, otherwise as long as you've a communist leader, you no longer have any communism, but a red flavor of Fascism.

Trump, as well as Putin, is an elected body, this means the people voted them for be their representatives.

I am intrigued by the meditation and the inner reflection aspect of it.  I think I read in Sam Harris book that there are some monks that can dissociate their own ego from their mind and see the world in a completely different way.  

I have a hard time accepting the rebirth idea because I cannot prove that animals (humans) have a soul and I cannot prove that there is life after death.  It is all too supernatural to give it a serious consideration.

I think you have to put your secular glasses on when you read the Buddist doctrine as this ideology is not immune to violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

You have to cherry pick the good bits but the moral code is better than any of the Abrahamic religions.

As predicted, you don't care to have a debate, you would rather inject other side topics over and over again. Why? because you know you have no argument, so you have to manufacture an opinion for me for you to defeat. The left has no grounds calling for blame over rhetoric let alone violence based on the past several years of their own behavior.

But Satan thought he was better than God and tried to conquer God. So, God destroyed him, and is in the process of destroying his works.

Do you see how stupid the religious ideologies are?  Not only they teach you nonsense, but the moral code they espouse is abhorrent.

LOL! You don't even realize how stupid that is, do you?... that anybody would think he can figure out what happened hundreds of thousands or millions of years in the past. Let me show you how stupid it is.

Today, right now, we have hundreds of thousands or millions of smart mathematicians trying to figure out where the Forex, the stock market, the derivatives market, the nations, elections, and thousands of other things are going in life.

If you had any brains at all, you would be scientifically checking into why the Bible is a solid, eye witness record, of things that happened in the past

communism, which, by such narrow definition, are fascists, or even worse extreme fascists, as the state controls absolutely everything on society.

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy

The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly.  People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.