‘Oikophobia’: Our Western Self-Hatred as a sign of Western civilizational decline

[Heathen Hammer]

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?

[Abdülmecid I]

Imagine being so clueless about history that you genuinely believe that the Greeks/Romans/French/(insert random nation that Benedict happened to hear about) firstly confronted their foreign enemies, which they defeated, because of their untested and uncultured strength (?), but then they started bickering among themselves. I have a feeling that Benedict is fantasising about strong, bare-chested and bearded barbarians subduing chubby, effeminate and hairless eunuchs, but the point is that he shouldn't extrapolate historical observations from his fetishes, normal or eccentric. On the other hand, I also noticed the lovely term ''civilizational enemy'', so there's a chance that Benedict's intellectual influences are touching a broader sphere of subjects, like the Mein Kampf.

Since Black Pigeon is also crying about the Western decline, then we may assume they are both a tad salty over the fact that the French revolutionaries, the Soviets and the partisans liquidated their ideological forefathers, from the Czars and Kings to Fascists and Nazis. Well, I sympathise with their frustration, as it's not nice to belong to the losing camp, but calling the annihilation of your political side a degenerate collapse of civilization sounds quite arrogant. To be frank, these rants have become rather boring, by now. Whiny moralists and imperialists complain about how luxury and women lead to chaos since the times of Isocrates and Plutarch. Back then, these diatribes were more original and also lacked any Hitlerite buzzword, so, overall, I'd rate Quilette's piece below average. By the way, as a general advice, if anybody is interested in how the Western Roman Empire disintegrated, better visit a university library, no need to waste your free time watching Holocaust denialists. Their arguments are more nuanced and coherent than our dove's flowery words, expressed in artificial accent.

[Heathen Hammer]

Imagine being so clueless about history that you genuinely believe that the Greeks/Romans/French/(insert random nation that Benedict happened to hear about) firstly confronted their foreign enemies, which they defeated, because of their untested and uncultured strength (?), but then they started bickering among themselves. I have a feeling that Benedict is fantasising about strong, bare-chested and bearded barbarians subduing chubby, effeminate and hairless eunuchs, but the point is that he shouldn't extrapolate historical observations from his fetishes, normal or eccentric. On the other hand, I also noticed the lovely term ''civilizational enemy'', so there's a chance that Benedict's intellectual influences are touching a broader sphere of subjects, like the Mein Kampf.

Since Black Pigeon is also crying about the Western decline, then we may assume they are both a tad salty over the fact that the French revolutionaries, the Soviets and the partisans liquidated their ideological forefathers, from the Czars and Kings to Fascists and Nazis. Well, I sympathise with their frustration, as it's not nice to belong to the losing camp, but calling the annihilation of your political side a degenerate collapse of civilization sounds quite arrogant. To be frank, these rants have become rather boring, by now. Whiny moralists and imperialists complain about how luxury and women lead to chaos since the times of Isocrates and Plutarch. Back then, these diatribes were more original and also lacked any Hitlerite buzzword, so, overall, I'd rate Quilette's piece below average. By the way, as a general advice, if anybody is interested in how the Western Roman Empire disintegrated, better visit a university library, no need to waste your free time watching Holocaust denialists. Their arguments are more nuanced and coherent than our dove's flowery words, expressed in artificial accent.

Sounds like you've neither read the article nor watched the rather short video, but still couldn't resist leaving this, um, rant.
Attempts at divination by trying to claim that deep inside anyone who disagrees with your linear black & white view of the world is a secret Nazi are quite amusing, but we see leftists use this tactic all the time and it is getting old and at this point, when leftists are losing popularity, does nothing but kinda advertise Hitler's ideas in on itself(i.e. the whole "if you dislike pedophiles then you are a Nazi" take that is quite popular among modern SJWs). It is quite obvious that author of the article and the guy who created the video are quite politically neutral and are critical of the ideological opposite of oikophobia as needlessly radical as well. The point of the thread, as well as video and the article, went completely above your head.
At the end of the day, oikophobia isn't ideological, but civilizational phenomena. People that ally themselves to oikophobic ideologies like neoliberalism and marxism hate their civilization not out of belief that it contradicts some kind of higher egalitarian ideal, but because they hate something about themselves. Majority of Western left are simply unhappy people, mainly due to their own inadequacies. There is no ideological consistency within the left, it is purely an expression of somewhat mentally ill psyche of self-hating Western man.
In general, I'm glad that you left that comment because in on itself it illustrates the point about how irrational marxism, neoliberalism and other egalitarian oikophobic beliefs really are.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Alot of this idea of oikophobia across vastly different cultures and peoples seems to come from the sort of lumping together done by ideologues to create a narrative. It’s a common tactic of those who actually are ideologically opposed to cultural, economic, and civic themes associated with “western” society. Fighting fire with fire may seem epistemologically viable at a glance. However, I question the merits of considering such tactics a threat to human freedom whilst engaging in it on the latter’s behalf, especially in defense of “western” values like empiricism, liberty, human rights, and objective truth. If “we” are correct on our own merits, calling xenophobia and isolationism patriotism and safety only hurts a just cause. Calling “western” values “self loathing” ostensibly in defense of those values belies the bad faith of those who engage in such narratives.

[Heathen Hammer]

Alot of this idea of oikophobia across vastly different cultures and peoples seems to come from the sort of lumping together done by ideologues to create a narrative. It’s a common tactic of those who actually are ideologically opposed to cultural, economic, and civic themes associated with “western” society. Fighting fire with fire may seem epistemologically viable at a glance. However, I question the merits of considering such tactics a threat to human freedom whilst engaging in it ostensibly on the latter’s behalf, especially in defense of “western” values like empiricism, liberty, human rights, and objective truth. If “we” are correct on our own merits, calling xenophobia and isolationism patriotism and safety only hurts a just cause.

Calling oikophobia and globalism egalitarianism and prospertity also hurts the cause.
Like I said, the issue is the fact that Western societies exhibit same "symptoms" Roman Empire and other civilizations did prior to their collapse, rampant oikophobia being one of them among many others, including the moral and political decay of ruling elites which become increasingly cosmopolitan and identify with their own people less and less to the point of vicious Leninist levels of anti-nationalism.

[Sir Adrian]

Imagine being so clueless about history that you genuinely believe that the Greeks/Romans/French/(insert random nation that Benedict happened to hear about) firstly confronted their foreign enemies, which they defeated, because of their untested and uncultured strength (?), but then they started bickering among themselves.

That's literally the story of the Roman Republic.

[Cyclops]

...I quite like Oiks. I identify as one.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Calling oikophobia and globalism egalitarianism and prospertity also hurts the cause.
Like I said, the issue is the fact that Western societies exhibit same "symptoms" Roman Empire and other civilizations did prior to their collapse, rampant oikophobia being one of them among many others, including the moral and political decay of ruling elites which become increasingly cosmopolitan and identify with their own people less and less to the point of vicious Leninist levels of anti-nationalism.

Marxism isn’t predicated on nor necessarily related to oikophobia though. Maoism in particular heavily encourages nationalism and especially ethnic nationalism if perceived to further the cause of toppling ideologically troublesome power structures/enemies. The CCP, for example, relies on strident and bellicose “One China” nationalism as the foundation of its ideological and geopolitical designs, and as a tool of brutal domestic repression. I suppose one can use “globalism” as a euphemism to refer to the appeasement of the regime by western economic and political elites, but that’s called greed and apathy toward the status quo, not oikophobia. I’m not convinced the latter is what begets the former. The suggestion that systemic fear and suspicion of Chinese people, for example, might have prevented this, is ultimately unfalsifiable because it’s a matter of personal preference rather than principle or theory.

Criticizing specific aspects of one’s own country or culture isn’t inherently oikophobic either. The ability to do so without fear of communal reprisal is a key aspect of individualism and freedom of thought and expression, core “western” values one will not typically find in what we’ll call oikophilic cultures like Switzerland, Korea or Japan. Is looking and thinking the same as your neighbors all that important if communal peer pressure deprives you of your rights without recourse? Who watches the watchmen?

The Roman Empire fell because empires rise and fall, not because strong men became cosmopolitan men became weak men. What one might call corrupt tendencies in society are as natural and inevitably human as those that drive us to form groups with similar people in the first place. An instinctive aversion to otherness, while perhaps beneficial for self preservation in the wild, also limits the productive capacity and freedom of the individual human mind. As attributed to Voltaire, “No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking.” Thinking is the essence of being human as well as human evolutionary success, and it’s this thinking that will lead us all to our demise or save us from ourselves on this planet we all live on together.

[antaeus]

Civilizational decline only exists in the minds of those whom are unwilling or incapable of changing with circumstance. It sits in the realm of "nostalgia for better times" which is ripe pickings for those who see the unpredictability of progress as bad.

The Roman empire for example... didn't really fall, but started changing in form the moment it began. Those changes ultimately led the territories and identities that composed it being something else. But it's unlikely that an ordinary person on the street perceived any single moment of fall. There were occasional moments of change or rupture, but the fall was a 1500 year process, and could be argued the evolution of values, knowledge, identity etc that came with it's formation, are still in that process of change now.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Civilizational decline only exists in the minds of those whom are unwilling or incapable of changing with circumstance. It sits in the realm of "nostalgia for better times" which is ripe pickings for those who see the unpredictability of progress as bad.

The Roman empire for example... didn't really fall, but started changing in form the moment it began. Those changes ultimately led the territories and identities that composed it being something else. But it's unlikely that an ordinary person on the street perceived any single moment of fall. There were occasional moments of change or rupture, but the fall was a 1500 year process, and could be argued the evolution of values, knowledge, identity etc that came with it's formation, are still in that process of change now.

It’s worth mentioning this comes with the asterisk of fear or aversion to change which is perceived to be harmful; a matter of analysis rather than instinct.

[Sir Adrian]

Civilizational decline only exists in the minds of those whom are unwilling or incapable of changing with circumstance. It sits in the realm of "nostalgia for better times" which is ripe pickings for those who see the unpredictability of progress as bad.

The Roman empire for example... didn't really fall, but started changing in form the moment it began. Those changes ultimately led the territories and identities that composed it being something else. But it's unlikely that an ordinary person on the street perceived any single moment of fall. There were occasional moments of change or rupture, but the fall was a 1500 year process, and could be argued the evolution of values, knowledge, identity etc that came with it's formation, are still in that process of change now.

Except after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, there was a sharp decline in living standards, literacy and basically everything from healthcare to architectural sophistication in Western Europe plummeted, the economy crashed to below subsistence levels (it wouldn't be until the 1800s when average standard of life was as high as during roman times) and roman culture, aside for language, was basically completely wiped out in the west.

[pacifism]

Who's ruining Western civilization this time? Is it women, nonwhites, Jews, or communists?

Also, is that YouTube video by that one pigeon-loving neo-Nazi Black Pigeon Speaks, or is it a copycat channel made by a fan? It's unclear to me.

[Sir Adrian]

The topic of this thread is western civilization ruining itself though decadence and passivity. And if you look at who were the superstars of high society 300 years ago (Handel, Mozart, Newton, Liebnitz etc) and who are superstars today(cooks, actors, athletes, Justin Bieber) there is a point to be made.

[Love Mountain]

Except after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, there was a sharp decline in living standards, literacy and basically everything from healthcare to architectural sophistication in Western Europe plummeted, the economy crashed to below subsistence levels (it wouldn't be until the 1800s when average standard of life was as high as during roman times) and roman culture, aside for language, was basically completely wiped out in the west.

Okay, but I think that living standards fell because the empire's power declined. The internal rot, came in the form of administrative decay, rather than... well anything to do with "culture". Power struggles and internal fighting sapped the strength of the empire, which then allowed its enemies to chip it away.

Following that, we should be far less concerned with "cultural marxism", "intersecionality", and other buzzwords, and far more concerned with how Western institutions are failing to govern the country.

[antaeus]

Okay, but I think that living standards fell because the empire's power declined. The internal rot, came in the form of administrative decay, rather than... well anything to do with "culture". Power struggles and internal fighting sapped the strength of the empire, which then allowed its enemies to chip it away.

Can anybody tell me when Roman living standards suddenly declined? Was it during the crisis of the 3rd century? during the 4th century revival? during the evolving states of the 5th century? Was the dominate any less powerful than the principate? Was a 6th century self identifying Roman, who speaks the local variant of Latin and is a resident of Arles under Frankish rule less roman than one speaking Greek and living in Athens? were living standards declining in Constantinople during this time? How about Alexandria? Like I said.. it was an evolutionary process that was neither uniform in timeline, or geography. There was no "Fall" History isn't neat periods of rise, plateau, decline and fall. That's a story narrative, not history.

Following that, we should be far less concerned with "cultural marxism", "intersecionality", and other buzzwords, and far more concerned with how Western institutions are failing to govern the country.

Exactly.

[Sir Adrian]

Okay, but I think that living standards fell because the empire's power declined. The internal rot, came in the form of administrative decay, rather than... well anything to do with "culture". Power struggles and internal fighting sapped the strength of the empire, which then allowed its enemies to chip it away.

Following that, we should be far less concerned with "cultural marxism", "intersecionality", and other buzzwords, and far more concerned with how Western institutions are failing to govern the country.

Culture is intrinsically tied into administrative rot and everything you mentioned, because culture dictates behavior and response. If a culture becomes decadent it will be far more prone to corruption and far more lethargic in its responses to inside threads and chaos.

Best examples take Germany or Scandinavia and places like Romania or Ukraine. Romania and Ukraine have a culture which tolerates small corruption and encourages people to cut corners and try to get away with as much possible, whereas Germany has a culture the is extremely intolerant to corruption and corner cutting. The results are visible, despite Romania and Ukraine having a larger economic potential than two Germanies.

Or even better look at the richest and at the same time poorest country on earth, Zaire. Everything wrong with that country is the result of culture.

And culture is dictated by education. When you university no longer teaches the classic because it is too busy instilling snowflake mentality and teaching intersectionality you should be extremely concerned about those buzzwords. Today's buzzwords are tomorrow's actions and truths.

[antaeus]

Culture is intrinsically tied into administrative rot and everything you mentioned, because culture dictates behavior and response. If a culture becomes decadent it will be far more prone to corruption and far more lethargic in its responses to inside threads and chaos.

Best examples take Germany or Scandinavia and places like Romania or Ukraine. Romania and Ukraine have a culture which tolerates small corruption and encourages people to cut corners and try to get away with as much possible, whereas Germany has a culture the is extremely intolerant to corruption and corner cutting. The results are visible, despite Romania and Ukraine having a larger economic potential than two Germanies.

Or even better look at the richest and at the same time poorest country on earth, Zaire. Everything wrong with that country is the result of culture.

And culture is dictated by education. When you university no longer teaches the classic because it is too busy instilling snowflake mentality and teaching intersectionality you should be extremely concerned about those buzzwords. Today's buzzwords are tomorrow's actions and truths.

There is nothing inherent in any of those cultures that suggests they have tendencies towards corruption or tolerance of decay or corner cutting. Culture is in constant flux and can change on a coin toss. Ukraine's 2014 turmoil was an example of a complete lack of acceptance of corruption of one kind. But yet the government that was created after was rife with corruption. This speaks not to a cultural tolerance of corner cutting, but rather the opposite. It speaks to a general and widespread frustration with institutional and systemic problem with the structures of government that are hard to break because grift and corruption have so many people financially invested in them. The same is true of Romania or any other country that struggles with corruption. Few people like corruption, it is tolerated because of a power imbalance within a structure, it is difficult to eliminate because governmental systems have evolved to work within a corrupt framework that has too many stakeholders. Scandinavia and Germany don't lack in corruption because their cultures are less tolerant. They lack corruption because over recent decades they've built strong institutions that make it difficult for corruption to thrive.

But even in Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden, Singapore and Switzerland (the world's least corrupt countries) there are fraud trials and bribery scandals etc - Irrespective of culture there are always people looking to game the system. Everywhere. Fraud and bribery exist in the least corrupt countries. But their institutions manage to keep it to an acceptably low level - but that's not for lack of people trying to get away with things. It's the weak institutions of the Ukraine or Romania that allow it to flourish. Not cultural acceptance.

Which leads me onto the next thing. Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden, Singapore and Switzerland all have strong robust democracies and are largely progressive in outlook. They're hardly flag bearers for societal decay or eminent fall - a concept which I am entirely sceptical of in the first place. I think the entire premise of this thread is intellectually weak and paranoid.

[Abdülmecid I]

Sounds like you've neither read the article nor watched the rather short video, but still couldn't resist leaving this, um, rant.
Attempts at divination by trying to claim that deep inside anyone who disagrees with your linear black & white view of the world is a secret Nazi are quite amusing.

So, should I have censored myself for the sake of political correctness? Benedict copied the term of civilizational enemy straight from Mein Kampf and mixed it with an incoherent collection of pseudo-history and BDSM fantasies. The Internet is not a safe space, so, if Benedict does not wish to be labelled as a Hitler groupie, he should probably reevaluate his ideas. Not sure about the Marxist, degenerate scoundrels, but I'm not going to castrate my right to free-speech, because it might harm the fragile sensitivities of the alt-right snowflakes.

It wouldn't be until the 1800s when average standard of life was as high as during roman times and roman culture, aside for language, was basically completely wiped out in the west.

Citation needed for both claims. I personally know they are both totally wrong, but it would be interesting to hear about your sources.

The topic of this thread is western civilization ruining itself though decadence and passivity. And if you look at who were the superstars of high society 300 years ago (Handel, Mozart, Newton, Liebnitz etc) and who are superstars today(cooks, actors, athletes, Justin Bieber) there is a point to be made.

Do you really believe that Newton and Leibniz were the superstars of their century? You are comparing apples with oranges, Settra, pop culture was never dominated by renowned scientists. Given the illiteracy and lack of mass media in the 17th and 18th centuries, the only members of the lower classes that had ever heard of Newton were counterfeiters, but not because of his achievements in physics. The irony is that I could make the same argument and reach a diametrically opposite conclusion, since actors and chefs also enjoyed illustrious careers in royal courts and popular imagination. Take for instance, Stephen Hawking and Sarah Siddons. I suppose Georgian England was pretty decadent, thank God our people rediscovered its inner, uncultured strength and prevailed over its natural enemies and effeminate materialism. By the way, that wasn't supposed to sound Fascist at all. No, that's totally a buzzword invented by Bolsheviks to slander good, respectable black-shirts.

That's literally the story of the Roman Republic.

Right, the overthrow of the Tarquin dynasty, the Social War, Sulla's proscriptions, Caesar and his successors' civil wars, the Year of the Four Emperors were all signs of the imminent collapse of the Roman Empire. Ill-educated journalists like Benedict not only commit gross methodological errors, like him conveniently ignoring the Byzantines, but also distort concrete, historical facts. I know that it's nowadays a common symptom of post-modernism to spin science, in order to fill particular, reactionary narratives, but there should be limits to that morally controversial practice, shouldn't they?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The topic of this thread is western civilization ruining itself though decadence and passivity. And if you look at who were the superstars of high society 300 years ago (Handel, Mozart, Newton, Liebnitz etc) and who are superstars today(cooks, actors, athletes, Justin Bieber) there is a point to be made.

Hmm, i would say ruining state budgets for representative, showy castles, gardens and for your own personal court componist with orchestra was more decadent.

Damn Rococo.

As others already said decline of <insert your civilisation here> is an old topic.

Even Tacitus presented already in the second century AD the Germanic People as not corrupted example to the in his eyes already decadent Romans.

[athanaric]

In my experience, Western oikophobia is a result of extreme Eurocentrism, ironically often by the very people who think they're against Eurocentrism. Take extreme ignorance of pre-1500s history (especially outside of Europe), highly selective usage of examples from modern history, the underlying belief that it's all the "white man's" fault (and/or "the Jews'" or other "Western entities"), and voilà, you've got a self-reinforcing closed belief system.