maybe that's because we're in the midst of climate collapse and whatever the hell is going on with unfettered capitalism and we don't have the luxury of anarchists of yore?

I have no clue how they came to the conclusion that ziqs texts are hard to understand. Honestly when I tried to get into anarchy I was really discouraged by the bread book, communist manifesto, or bookchin. Tho reading ziq and c4ss was very easy to understand. Like how could "anarchy is" be a difficult anarchist Text? And regrettably greasers are you a anarchist was a good text. But the recommendations on Reddit were super confusing and unconvincing.

Idk leftist anarchism gives people nothing but hope and join a org. While post leftism is a lifestyle to improve ones life. Hence why I've only found one enticing. Do people really think reading the bread book is more helpful than a lifestyle at philosophy to help free ones mind and help one learn how to live without work and rent?

I have no idea where this idea comes from that traditional leftist texts from 100 years ago could possible be more approachable than ziq. When ziq I'd literally top 5 most easy to understand anarchist writers.

Social Anarchism has always been more about getting bigger numbers than actual anarchy.

I get why they are the way they are. I can see their reasoning. I just don't see any value in watering down my beliefs to reach some mythical Least Common Denominator that'll end up just being some variation of social democracy--which is the only way that anarchism would be popular.

Also, the people who disagree with my position won't agree with me just because they read a book that I wrote explaining the ins and outs of my philosophy/politics.

You don't become your political opposite just by reading a text that happened to be adequately written (I certainly wouldn't want to ally myself with someone so easily persuaded).

If a Marxist handed me a persuasive essay about why I should be a Marxist, I'd politely take it and throw it away when they weren't looking (like I do with Christians and their seemingly endless pamphlets).

"Introductory material" is arbitrary; a lot of anarchists seem to go out of their way to explain that their position is this and not that or define words to make sure that the reader knows that they're saying that instead of this. They like to say why [thing anarchists hate] instead of just "[thing anarchists hate] should be abolished". Almost like they're used to having to dispel misinterpretations and misunderstandings of their positions and desires.