Oh dear.

But anyway, given that I actually pointed out I disagree with him in some aspects, how is that fawning?

The guy's got a history that reads better than any of us here could probably hope for and he writes some amazingly well thought out and well reasoned essays.

I'm don't idolize him, I think he's more intelligent than me.

Which I say about very, very few people.

I think it's absurd to call him a pseudo-intellectual.

Going by your personality as demonstrated here it seems you idolize intellect so when you "think he's more intelligent than" you you're going to put him on a pedastle. This may seem natural to you, but it comes across as fawning and misplaced.

To dig into word choice here a bit. You attack someone for placing a value on "intellect", but criticize pg for being a "pseudo-intellectual". One interpretation of this is that you regard an "intellectual" to be something other than person who effectively used their intellect. Instead, you seem to regard an intellectual as a person who expresses conformity with the majority view of American academia (i.e., a modern liberal who isn't fond of markets.)

Your argument does not make any sense at all. It's a string of words ordered to seems to mean something rational, while it is in fact complete gibberish. Listing accomplishments paired with fawning and idolatry is ... exactly that. Reverence, not cultism.