It's interesting how people are attacking you for using 'pseudo-intellectual', while completely disregarding the 'cult-like reverence' bit. Your question is jus

It's interesting how people are attacking you for using 'pseudo-intellectual', while completely disregarding the 'cult-like reverence' bit. Your question is just as damning without the 'pseudo-intellectual' adjective, yet they are trying to change that to 'intellectual'. This is a nice demonstration of 'framing': you frame pg as not deserving cult-like reverence because of his 'pseudo-intellectuality' and people respond by explaining how he is a true intellectual. Except that the arguments they give for that assertion are wrong, because that is not the assertion for which they have arguments. Their arguments actually explain why pg is revered and they are now contorted to be arguments that seem to be meant to explain why is he is cult-like revered for his intellectuality. The result is that it seem like people are tacitly acknowledging the 'cult-like reverence' and are giving completely ridiculous arguments in support. The ridiculousness of those arguments is pointed out and we get into pointless discussions about what things mean, completely losing sight of the original point. The bottom line is: pg is revered and reasons for that reverence are given. There is nothing cult-like about the reverence and the pseudo-intellectual part of his writings (I would use another word to describe that quality of the writings, but that is beyond my current argument), are not the reason for the reverence.