Edited

"The term Fascism is now used more as an epithet than as a term for any existing systems". The new world order is heading towards a totalitarian or authoritarian government of absolute power but it is not based on race or religion or nationalism so the term fascist as it applied to Mussolini or Hitler is not very accurate.

I would like to see the scholarly source that you have that calls the present neocons communists. (NOt some raving columnist or talk show host) The fact that the people we call neocons today may have once been liberals is irrelevant to the present.

In fact I think the below description is more smoke and mirrors. The neocons pretend, like George Booosh to be for democracy but in fact they are totalitarian imperialist capitalists or Feudal Royalists. Totalitarian is a better word than fascist to describe them. They are interested principly in their own power and money.







] Smith questions the link between Strauss and neoconservative thought, arguing that Strauss was never personally active in politics, never endorsed imperialism, and questioned the utility of political philosophy for the practice of politics

Neoconservatism is the political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of social liberalism and the New Left counter-culture of the 1960s. It influenced the Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and the George W. Bush presidential administrations, representing a re-alignment in American politics, and the defection of liberals to the right-hand side of the political spectrum.[1] One accomplishment was "to make criticism from the Right acceptable in the intellectual, artistic, and journalistic circles where conservatives had long been regarded with suspicion."[1] Neoconservatism emphasises foreign policy as paramount responsibility of government, seeing the need for the U.S. acting as the world's sole superpower as indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order.[2]

As a term, neoconservative first was used derisively by democratic socialist Michael Harrington to identify a group of people (who described themselves as liberals) as newly stimulated conservative ex-liberals. The idea that liberalism "no longer knew what it was talking about" is neoconservatism's central theme.[3]

The development of this conservatism is based on the work and thought of Irving Kristol, co-founder of Encounter magazine, and of its editor (1953–58),[4] Norman Podhoretz,[5] and others who described themselves as "neoconservatives" during the Cold War.

Prominent neoconservatives are associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard, and with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

The term 'Neoconservative' was originally used as a criticism against liberals that had politically 'moved to the right'. [6][7]
Contents

[edit] Neoconservative policies

Irving Kristol, the "god-father" and one of the founders of neoconservatism, stated five basic policies of neoconservatism that distinguish it from other "movements" or "persuasions"[8]. These policies, he claimed, "result in popular Republican presidencies":

1. Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth."[8]
2. Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."[8]
3. Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservatives in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power."[8]
4. Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you."[8]
5. National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."[8