It should not have fallen upon me to edit and reissue the 1602 Anti-Machiavel. Machiavelli is the father of modern political science, he's sometimes called the father of the Enlightenment, it's not an academic issue, it has real-world consequences, whether he was right or not. I never had an interest in Machiavelli, but when I found this book I said this is really important, it's the most comprehensive rebuttal to Machiavelli and it's effectively out of circulation.
So naturally in the course of editing and publishing it, and researching for the introduction, I asked myself "why is this book not more widely known?" And the answer is that academics do not care whether or not Machiavelli was right, they care about other things, mostly their careers appeasing power. Is it useful to have people think Machiavelli was right? This indifference to truth has very great consequences. Some of the neocons, the people responsible for 9/11, even say Machiavelli did not go far enough. They are even more severe in their application of power. So you can think that experts are reliable, but in every field I've investigated, they are all lying on the most fundamental, foundational issues.