First of all, the term "neo-conservative" is thrown around very freely by people who have no idea what it means. The idea that there is a link between the Austrian school of economics and libertarian capitalism on the one hand and "neo-conservatism" on the other is historically absurd. The term neo-conservative was coined in the 1970s to refer to a group of people who had originally been on the left (and sympathetic to socialism and activist government) but moved right on a number of (mostly foreign policy and social) issues. The leading figures in this group were Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. After their move toward the right, they retained their belief in a positive and active role for government. One of the things that distinguished them from other American conservatives, in fact, was that they were NOT advocates of completely untrammeled free markets. That is why one of the well-known neo-conservative books back then was called "Two Cheers for Capitalism" --- note, only two, not three, cheers. The Milton Friedman conservatives and the neo-Conservatives were (on economic issues) on the opposite ends of the American conservative spectrum. Actually, on economic and social issues the neo-cons were closer to traditional Catholic social teaching than were other American conservatives.
The fact of the matter is that the word "neo-Conservative" has come to be a mere taunt word. The only meaning it still retains (as used by some people) is a veiled anti-semitism.
Many of the original neo-cons were Jewish, though there were also Catholics and Protestants among them. It is probably not an accident that the person who wrote this article refers to von Mises' Jewishness. It is well known that the fever swamps of SSPX-type "Traditionalism", especially in France, are a breeding ground of disgusting anti-Semitism. There was tendency in some conservative Catholic circles in the past to blame everything on "Jews and Freemasons". It lives on in some Traditionalist circles.
This is true, and my tweaking of libertarians is not to be taken as naievte on my part about the likely orientation of the posted article. The simple fact is that "ancient chr*stianity" was an underground apocalyptic movement. "Chr*stendom" or "chr*stian civilization" was an innovation that could only have come into existence after Constantine. This is why traditional Fundamentalist Protestantism (as opposed to today's Pat Robertson variety, which tends to be activist and triumphalist) were "Theocratic anarchists" who felt the world order was inherently wicked and fated to end in the reign of anti-christ. It didn't just happen to be evil at the present time--it was inherently evil and could not be converted. All traditional Fundamentalists could do was "snatch souls from the burning" and wait the second coming. This is a far cry from contemporary Fundamentalism, which has made its peace with the concept of chr*stendom.
All that being said, the fact is that when chr*stendom did form it got many of its ideas about society and economics from the Jewish Torah simply because it had nowhere else to turn to (the "new testament" certainly doesn't contain any instructions for the right ordering of society). Rightwing Catholicism has always borrowed heavily from the laws for apportioning the Land of Israel among the tribes, the laws of Shemittah and Yovel (sabbatical and Jubilee years), and the "just weights and just measures." This makes the anti-Semitism of the Catholic Right all the more heartbreaking, since what winds up being discredited are legitimate economic concepts.
The main thing to remember about chr*stianity is, the more similar to Judaism, the more anti-Jewish; the more radically different from Judaism, the more pro-Jewish (with Rightwing Catholicism and pro-Jewish antinomian Fundamentalism as the archtypes of this rule).