Since the rise of identity politics in the West, that begun in early 2010s US (but arguable begun much earlier with "slow march" of ideological marxists into Western academia and entertainment industries in XX century), many have already grown accustomed to the archetype of self-hating Western man.
In a paradoxical mental twist, you have people who often hate their culture, hate their civilization and often even hate their own race and ethnicity. The significant aspect of this is that it is strictly unique to the West, since we don't see that in non-Western nations be it well-developed Japan or some poor nation in Central Asia. But sadly, we do see examples of same phenomena is civilizations that were in their declining stages, meaning that ours is showing same alarming symptoms, oikophobia being one of them.
Here I present some excerpts from Benedict Beckeld's excellent article on the subject matter - Oikophobia:
The simplest way of defining oikophobia is as the opposite extreme of xenophobia. As xenophobia means the fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners, so oikophobia means the fear or hatred of home or one’s own society or civilization, oikos being the ancient Greek word for home, house, household. The term was coined in this sense by British philosopher Roger Scruton in 2004, in his book England and the Need for Nations. He calls oikophobia “the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours.’” As the title of his book suggests, Scruton is mainly concerned with England, and so within this framework he places the rise of oikophobia after World War II. There is much truth to this, but it is also true, to go beyond Scruton, that the oikophobe occurs and recurs throughout history. The oikophobia that developed after World War II is therefore only the latest manifestation of the phenomenon, and nothing truly new. The reason why we are experiencing oikophobia in the United States today is that we are in about the same phase of historical development now as England was after World War II, or a little earlier: a great power, but on the decline.

So oikophobia is a natural outgrowth of the way cultures, and certainly Western cultures, develop. It occurred in ancient Greece, in Rome, in the French and British empires, and now in the United States. To give a very brief overview of this development, we may say that in the beginning, a people relatively uncivilized and uncultured, but possessed of great mobility and untested strength, awakens and, as it were, goes to war in service of its deities. Initial successes against surrounding peoples lead to greater wealth and prestige, and a national identity is forged, accompanied by literary epics and other accoutrements of culture. Eventually, the people reaches its pinnacle of success, with so much wealth that a broad and permanent leisure class can be established, and this era of greatest political power will generally coincide, more or less, with the pinnacle of the nation’s cultural and scientific achievements. There is finally enough wealth and power for the leisure class, and in many cases for people lower on the social ladder as well, to become more occupied with achieving higher states of wealth and prestige vis-à-vis their countrymen than they are with the health of the community itself.

This is where oikophobia sets in. Diverse interests are created that view each other as greater enemies than they do foreign threats. Since the common civilizational enemy has been successfully repulsed, it can no longer serve as an effective target for and outlet of people’s sense of superiority, and human psychology generally requires an adversary for the purpose of self-identification, and so a new adversary is crafted: other people in the same civilization. Since this condition of leisure and empowerment, as well as a perception of external threats as non-existential, are the results of a society’s success, success is, ironically, a prerequisite for a society’s self-hatred. What Freud has called the “narcissism of small differences” (in Civilization and Its Discontents)—the urge to compete against others even through minor distinctions like a virtuous action or the newest gadget—becomes one motivation through which a particular interest expresses its superiority over others.

This “domestic” competition means that by rejecting one’s culture as backward, one automatically sets oneself above all the other interests that are parts of that culture. Earlier in the civilizational development, the cooperation of a larger proportion of the people is essential for survival at a time when the state is poorer and individuals more reliant on one another for basic security. But once the society has taken off and become affluent, there is greater opportunity to excel and more room, therefore, for people to start criticizing their own culture in an effort to get ahead personally. People are always self-interested, of course, but the gulf between immediate self-interest and the interest of the state is smaller when the state itself is smaller and weaker.
So as we see, Western self-hatred isn't a sign of some sort of political "woke enlightenment" that oikophobic left is trying to present itself as, but, rather typical phenomena for a declining civilization, where civilization has already reached its zenith and now it simply benefits one more to work against your own community then with it. This stems from establishment of permanent leisure class of corporate CEOs and bankers who no longer identify with their nations and people, but view them as an obstacle to wealth and power instead - hence why oikophobic ideas such as marxism and globalism spread from bourgeois elites, rather then common folks.
Here's another good video that explains oikophobia and draws parallels between late Roman Empire and modern West, explaining why latter is in severe decline:

So without a doubt, our civilization has seen better years, or even centuries.
So how bad is current civilization decline of the West? What can be done to prevent it or at least postpone it?