Concepts not only describe the world but also enable the construction of the reality we perceive. For the human mind can never grasp the world through its own objective reality; it transforms it into a new form by processing it with the help of concepts. Just as when painting a picture, it mixes colors in different hues and transfers them to the canvas. Thus, what we know as reality detaches from its original existence and becomes a design we create. When the mind accepts the format conveyed to it through pre-formulated, bounded content and begins to use concepts, it also attributes certain values ​​to them. Through concepts, it categorizes reality, positions it hierarchically, and places it within a dichotomy of right and wrong; in other words, it processes raw material into a product and presents it to us.

In this sense, language shifts from a passive transmitter to an active productive force that determines the working conditions of the mind. While the meaning a person ascribes to concepts and words is shaped by biological, genetic, epigenetic, cultural, and other codes, nuances disappear when the use of language becomes a collective understanding. In Gustave Le Bon's words, individual thought is subject to the law of "the mental unity of the mass." In the political universe, who is an enemy and who is a friend, who is good and who is bad, who is a terrorist and who is a warrior, is molded into these patterns. In Michel Foucault's words, "the production of discourse is controlled; selected; regulated and redistributed." Power is first established in language, and its continuity is ensured through language. The pressure exerted by political authority on knowledge and information systems is crucial for the construction of truth by power. This order, which Foucault describes as the "regime of truth," dictates the use of certain pre-ascribed concepts, condemning and forcing the oblivion of some while sanctifying others. Therefore, the political authority's "conceptual shift" can be seen as a sign of the construction of a new reality and a mental transformation.

US President Donald Trump's decision to return the department, which for nearly 70 years had been called the Department of Defense, to the Department of War is not merely an administrative change; it can be considered the expression of a symbolic, historical, and philosophical choice. This, on the one hand, signals the disappearance of the conditions for a return to the post-war defense concept of the institution defined as the Department of War from 1789 to 1947. On the other hand, it demonstrates the need to redefine concepts such as "power, security, and safety." While the process that developed under the conditions of the "Cold War" and continued afterward embraced the right of "legitimate defense" as a global norm, this new political construct will inevitably force changes in the content of concepts such as peace, stability, diplomacy, and so on.

This shift in the official discourse of the global leader, the United States, is undoubtedly not a simple show of force encompassing only the military universe. The re-legitimization and normalization of the state of war, which has been declared an outlier in international relations since 1928, could turn into an ideological pandemic. This mental transformation could shift states' reasons for waging war from soft grounds such as self-defense against the aggressor, combating injustice, protecting human rights, and so on, to hard grounds such as protecting national interests, creating living space, and achieving what God has promised.

Such an approach is likely to impact US-Russia-China relations, and therefore solidarity within NATO, as well as the attitudes of rival blocs, leading to the consolidation of military alliances and the expansion of the military-industrial complex. In this way, war will gradually be redefined as the continuation of politics by other means, as defined by Clausewitz, and the phrase "If you want peace, prepare for war" (civis pacem parabellum) could become a global slogan.

It would not be surprising if Trump's amendment (even if it has not yet been approved by Congress) will have consequences that will affect the mass psychology of American society in the medium term. What will happen? Aggressive policies pursued against the outside world will sharpen the balance between authority and obedience within the country, leaving no weak link. War, by transforming individuals into citizens, demands from them the promise of duty for the country, even to the point of death if necessary. The fundamental motivation of the state-individual relationship will shift from individual responsibility to militaristic obedience.

The masses, constantly threatened and on alert, normalize the state of mobilization. The soldier-nation imagination elevates collective narcissism and nationalist mobilization. Paranoid not only towards the outside world but also towards those who fail to demonstrate similar obedience, the masses become polarized, and those who do not sanctify war are crushed by the warrior masses before the state. Authority imposes the banality of war on society and, by ensuring absolute obedience, convinces the masses that old, obsolete institutions must be dismantled. Thus, the construction of a new American ideal becomes possible. Perhaps the war is waged not against the outside, but against the inside!