>>13389
Me, I didn't really "devote" time to reading. In university, I've read on the bus, in between lectures, and often another hour later when I was home. I've split my reading up and just focused on the page number, which gave me a benchmark to work for. My aim was one textbook per week. How exactly I allocated my time to it wasn't important as long as I got everything done.
This may not work for you, but you can give it a try. Just set a goal and reach it. Doesn't matter if you read in between loading screens, on the bus, or while cooking, you just get it done. Eventually, it will become a habit. Then all you have to do is ensure you also understand what you're reading, but I talked about that above.
>I'm currently reading Mein Kampf and a book about the Katyn Massacre.
That's decent for a start. Just remember to go out every once in a while to read something you believe you will fundamentally disagree with. That may be extremely painful, but it's immensely valuable. Playing devils advocate this way isn't necessary often, maybe once every three books in the beginning when your views are still fresh and once every ten when they're reinforced against criticism. That's a rough guideline, of course. An 800-page treatise will likely be more illuminating than five smaller books, and books also aren't the only source of wisdom and personal conviction, so don't treat them as an accounting tool. I do that sometimes for the sake of expediency, but you shouldn't. Trust me on that.
>Didn't finish Evola's "Ride the Tiger" because it was kind of esoteric and went in out and out of abstractions, at least while I tried to focus on it.
Well, reading is a skill like any other. Train it, and work on your knowledge base, and then you can come back to Evola.