Trump did many things and he promised to do many more:
He conspired to steal an election and not leave office He incited a violent insurrection that lead to the deaths of people He undermined faith in the American election system He appointed many corrupt judges to important and crucial positions He staffed his adminisation with grifters and criminals He engaged in crimes to win an election He engaged in further crimes beyond that He promised to be dicator on day one He has no intention of leaving office or respecting any election results He is guaranteed to commit more crimes if elected and abuse his office His radical rhetoric has caused much domestic terrorism and violence, including his own assassination The people he will appoint in his admininsration will be radicals and criminals hell-bent on undermining the government from within. This is by their own words.

Steps from most fundamental and metaphysical to concrete and practical:

 
Being (connect with reality):
Tell the truth Accept yourself Contemplate Meditate Meaning (what should be happening in reality?): pursue what is meaningful.
Abstract principles and virtues (what is meaningful?): goal-oriented movement functionality health balance holism integration
  Concrete domains (what is meaningful?): Systemic: commit to long-term goals and daily habits; write lists, plans, journals; do yearly, biyearly, monthly evaluations of progress. Bio - psycho - social (Engel); also, id - ego - superego (Freud); reptilian brain - neocortex - limbic system (MacLean); competence - autonomy - belonging (Deci & Ryan); monster - man - lion (Plato). Bio: diet, exercise, pleasures, hobbies. Psycho: knowledge, wisdom, self-insight, values, self-esteem. Social: friends, family, partner, community.  
Summarized, you should connect with reality and pursue what is meaningful in reality; in alignment with abstract principles and virtues; using systemic techniques, habits, goals and practices; while covering all of the three bio-psycho-social domains.
To illustrate with one example of each (not at all exhaustive): you should meditate, balance all aspects of your life, work for a set period every day, while going to the gym, expanding your knowledge base and hanging out with your friends.
Another version: you should tell the truth, pursue health, write down everything your mind tells you is important to do or remember, engage in some short-term pleasures if you so desire, act in accordance with your inner values and keep up with your family members.

As a side note, this map shows what happens when things work as they should. It's not a given that things will work as they should, and in those cases, you need to fix yourself. Often, fixing yourself is not a matter of knowledge or will, but of untangling unconscious mechanisms and trauma. For that, conventional therapy, energy work and even psychedelics might be useful. In other cases, it may boil down to medical problems, which require medical solutions. Even though the map will fall short of addressing certain pathology, it does lay the foundation of health (in my opinion), and it's therefore relevant to everybody.

In this episode Andrew Huberman explains exactly how you trigger neuro-plasticity for learning. Very interesting!

For the sake of clear communication of sentiment, I have never had any interest in ‘having an impact or meaning’ on or for you. There is no experience of a you ‘here’. (Those are thoughts, assumptions, being projected).
 
Wants...
Harmony of body / mind / energy without contingency (of others). 
Unabashed expression (vs justifying / rationalizing thoughts / wants).
Contentment with what is. 
To realize I am the ‘will of life’, ‘consciousness’, etc. (That I am not ‘other than’ ‘this’.) 
To realize there is no actual delusion, sans the experience of one’s own thoughts / perspective. That it is an ‘othering’ lens you can put on and take off, which is essentially judgement of oneself. 
To realize happiness is all that is seen, is the very ‘seeing’. 
To realize ‘life’ is just a lens. 
To let go of security, need, attachment of knowledge, and all similar thought activity that is ‘the separate self’. 
The experience of helping yourself realize the true nature. 
To experience family, raising kids, etc. 
To realize ‘the world’ doesn’t exist (specifically in a capacity that it is separate, and you could work for it).
To realize there are no distinctions, especially in regard to separating a ‘yourself’ via believing your own distinctions in regard to ‘others’. 
To fully see through the mechanics of fear and create freely, in, of, and as, the true nature. 
To see through the falsity / duality of ‘seriousness’.  
To realize nothing can ever be said about nothing / (thought, perception, feeling... ‘it’s’ all just “experience”).
Edit: And sex. How could I forget! Two being one. ?
(If it seems as if I”m being unclear at all please let me know if you’d like any elaboration, in the sense, co-inspection of direct experience.)  
 
 

Easy. Shadow is sorta just the inverse of ego. Anything you think that isn't you and should not exist.
For example, if you think rapists should not exist, that's your shadow. You fail to accept that you are all the rapists in the world. This denial of rape is ego. It comes from fear, not Love.
If you were infinitely conscious you would realize and accept that you are a rapist, thereby healing the division between you and the rapey part of reality. The rapey part of reality is your shadow. It's that part of yourself which you have disowned in order to maintain an ego.

This is the best representation of what infinity feels like:

Don't take it too literally.

For religious/spiritual purposes you denounce the use of technology (psychedelics are the technology for awakening). Sure, you can learn some cool things doing things the old fashioned way of course (although psychedelic use may pre-date meditation). 
 
Why take the hard road? 

This is the problem with turning enlightenment into some binary thing.
There is no such thing as "enlightenment" as a monolith. No two people have the same degree and kind of consciousness. Rather than thinking of enlightenment as a monolithic state, open your mind to the possibility that there are thousands of different states from which one can be awake. So the chances that any two people have the same degree and kind of awakening is tiny. Which is why all these nonduality debates keep happening. People assume enlightenment is a monolithic singular thing but it obviously is not if you bother to research it in some depth.
There are many degrees and even different kinds of ego-death.
You can have an ego-death so deep that you won't even be able to know your own first name. Yet most awake people can still recall their first name. That doesn't mean they aren't awake. It just means there are different kinds and degrees and states. To reduce and dismiss this vast diversity of awakening is very problematic and leads to much confusion and misunderstanding. It is a parallel problem to thinking that Christianity is the one true best religion because it happens to be the one you're familiar with. But there are many other religions which are equally valid, if not more so. But you have to be able to step outside your little self-constructed bubble in order to see it.
People who speak of awakening/enlightenment as a singular thing have clearly not experienced anywhere near the range of consciousness that is possible. The chief characteristic of consciousness is its enormous diversity. Consciousness is infinitely diverse, beyond anything the default human mind-state can imagine. And even beyond what most enlightened humans can imagine. Just because you'd had some awakenings does not mean you understand how deep and diverse consciousness can be. No mater how awake you think you are, I guarantee you are underestimating what consciousness is capable of.

Libertarianism usually means liberty for the individual, ie individualism. But why? True liberty should also apply to the collective mind too, meaning that we (the democracy) are collectively free to apply restrictions to individuals, as much as to the government itself. That's the apparent paradox, created by our thinking that free will exists within the individual person. I suspect it's both: the collective is a creation of the group of individuals and the individual is a creation of the collective culture. 

Much in our world is socially constructed, but don't forget, that doesn't mean we can or should change it willy-nilly. Social constructions have a certain utilitarian function, which is why they were constructed in the first place. Most social constructions have also survived a long evolutionary process of trail and error and optimization, which means it's unlikely that you will just invent something better from your single small mind.
The logic goes a bit like this: We can all agree that the walls of your house were constructed, but that doesn't mean it is wise to demolish them, as the roof will collapse on your head.
To re-architect a complex thing requires deep intelligence and solid system's thinking. Re-architecting something as time-tested as gender roles is not as easy or harmless as some utopian stage Green folks would like to believe. You can do it, but what will be the down-range consequences?

That's actually a very popular tactic of fundamentalist Christians. They specifically prey on troubled and wounded people at around stage Red because they are ripe for Christian indoctrination.
The devil preys on the weak by offering them cookies. The devil never presents himself as some evil monster. He lures you in with nuggets of truth and wisdom which he then twists to twist your mind. The devil's whole MO is to make truth and falsehood so conflated as to be indistinguishable. The devil never peddles pure falsehood as that would be artless and far less effective than lacing truth with poison.

Green has a more integrated and expansive self-identity. Which of course embraces the feminine aspects which were suppressed at Red, Blue, and Orange -- especially by males.
It think in today's age men get stuck at Orange more easily while women naturally gravitate out of Orange towards Green because it aligns nicely with their feminine strength. For this reason many men resist Green because they perceive it as threatening the masculine identity they've struggled to cultivate for a decade or more. Hence the whole "soy-boy" meme and guys making fun of each other as "fags" or "that's gay".

Very loaded framing there.
Most people don't like being alone. This is not a female only thing. People are social creatures and like company. Men and women are designed to need and complement each other, like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.
In traditional cultures, men are also asked, "When are you getting married? Why are you still single?" That's just how how traditional cultures operate. They push for family life because they don't know any other way.

I explain it to myself like this:
1) The Green value system can easily be turned into an ideology without properly building up to it. You can just get programmed by the value system via your environment without growing into it yourself through inner work. This creates a flakey veneer of Green. In this case it might be a Green ideology which is almost as though adopted by stage Blue like people.
2) Green is a deep stage with lots to master and integrate. Most people who are "Green" aren't solid Green. They are dabblers.
3) It's easy to talk Green and believe Green while not having a solid foundation in Blue & Orange because someone else pays your bills. To truly lock down Green requires going off on your own and building a quality life. Which will necessitate exploration and mastery of Blue and Orange. I think many college kids are missing this.

A good friend shared this with me today. Seems like a great study for discovering the effects of psilocybin mushrooms outside the research laboratory. I’ll be doing it as well in a month. 
 
In brief, you do mushrooms on your own. You fill out surveys 2 weeks before, the day of, a 1 - 3 days after, and 1 - 3 months after your trip. They do not provide the mushrooms for you. 
 
https://hopkinspsychedelic.sjc1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6J1knad9u5P3DjT

And that was not a greatest decision, because it's not equivalent to what was posted before. Yellow also sorts everything into a natural hierarchy.
This is where we disagree. Government is crucial in all those areas. Judical system, environment planning, business regulation, labour law, freedom of religion, etc. It's all needed.
It's not like we are having philosophical discussion about what a social state can do. This is what a governement does right NOW. And it's an underfunded capitalistic government. What do you want to trim on? A system thinker thinks in flow. If you get rid of those functions of the government something needs to replace them.
The pipe dream of everything goes well when nobody watches. Sadly, it doesn't work. I mean, yes, the system does self-regulate, but not in a way that a libertarians like to think. The hand of free market doesn't work, because business organizations are, well, organized and have much bigger power leverage than unorganized consumers. The government IS the way consumers/workers unite and regulate business.
Free market's self-regulation depends on everyone having equal access to information, which is just impossible. As a consumer you can't know if your favourite producer of a soda drink is lacing it with lead, and you can't test it because as a single person, even wealthy one, you lack resources to do that to every product. Talk about inefficency. Oh wait, private organizations will test that. If you think bribing government is easy, imagine how hard it must be to bribe a small private organization. Anyway, how do you provide financing to these organizations that do government tasks in the first place? Bribery and lying might be their only income source in such economy.
The way a balance is achieved when government doesn't regulate trade is not by consumers being wise and organizations playing fairly or going out of business leading everyone to prosperity, but through a rapid rise of inequality causing riots and a revolution. History holds many proofs of that behaviour. Government is for keeping a slow pace of change.
Have you thought that what we have now is what WAS absolutely necessary? And most of it still IS and requires evolution, not throwing out.
You are free to believe what you want, although I recommend you read some actual stage Yellow thinkers like Yuval Noah Harari or Donella Meadows. Or maybe have a few lessons in Green economy by reading Picketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
I am no expert on economics, have read only a handful of books, but I am also not naive to believe getting rid of goverment would do any good. The two libertarian works I have read always critiqued old stage Blue ideas, they never even came close to properly addressing stage Green arguments.
I agree, haven't seen one yet. Because Sir, @giglio , you are not using Yellow level thinking when defending libertarian position.

I think it could work the way pirate ships worked. The pirate ship was basically a co-op model. But it wasn't flat. It had hierarchy and strong leadership, but every pirate, even the greenhorn, would get a percentage share of all the loot.
So, the captain might get 1/3 share.
His lieutenants might get 1/15th share.
And the lowest greenhorn sailor might get 1/100th share.
As you rise up the ranks and gain more experience and responsibility, your share increases.
This all basically boils down to how ownership and spoils get distributed.
The federal gov could basically mandate that each corporation with over 10, 50, or 100 employees must adopt this share model or face heavy fines/taxes.

Here's one of Orwell's essays I read in high school, and I think it ties in well with what Leo had to say about ideological thinking.
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
 
Here's an excerpt:
"By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
So long as it is applied merely to the more notorious and identifiable nationalist movements in Germany, Japan, and other countries, all this is obvious enough. Confronted with a phenomenon like Nazism, which we can observe from the outside, nearly all of us would say much the same things about it. But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one's own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted."

If  we are talking non duality Love should then also be imaginary? Or am I getting lost in the semantics.

Eating meat is not a sin.
It's not your fault if the factories are cruel. Animals have a limited capacity to suffer, and these animals were made for us to eat.
I would recommend starting with fish. Fish has spiritual significance, and as long as they're wild fish, the factory farming moral argument doesn't apply.
Stick to biblically clean animals, because those are the ones that we are meant to eat. I had a prawn the other day, and bacon occassionally, but i don't recommend that.
So what i mean is i eat meat. It is for nutrition, but it is also the most enjoyable food, except maybe for some junk foods, which again arent recommended. If you feel ready to try it, then go with that. I admire vegans for their moral commitment, but i don't view it as a moral necessity at all.
(I havent been vegan before, at least not for long, but i have had times when the only meat i ate was fish. I feel it is a meat which is close to vegetarianism.)

@Leilani You have to stop caring about feeling good and simply pursue what is true.

https://b-ok.cc/book/5232377/51d220

Example of tribal warfare and how genocides happen at stage Purple:
That's what happens in a true free market without a monopoly of force.

I'm from Nepal. Its so difficult to watch these problems are still prevelent. Its like i want to deny that such tradition still exists, although child labor, child marrige, castism, poverty, gender violence, unemployment are so common and is completely visible to me in daily basis.

Because they will be out=competed by Green businesses.
Who's gonna want to work for an Orange business when there are Green businesses to work for?
Who's gonna want to partner with an Orange business when culture shifts to the Green value system? Green is gonna view Orange businesses with shame. As it already the case with corporations who don't support BLM and LGBTQ and the environment.
All the biggest corporations are going Green, or risk upsetting the masses by being perceived as "evil". "Evil" is bad for business and this will only become more true in the future.