The history of our talks:
1. The editor has found a mistake in my proof for Goldbach's strong conjecture, and told me, that he will not read any revision of the manuscript, because: "many idiots are writing to us every day." (This reflects the main point in the original quote.)
Well, that's a pretty clear evaluation. It asn't just one minor mistake, or else that would not be the response from the editor.
2. I have managed to fix the mistake and wrote the revision file.
Unlikely. And did you fix the rest of the paper?
What should I do next? I think, that I should somewhat annoy this editor by sending him the revised file, even when he has said: "no file will be accepted for review, the decision is final."
Which means he will throw your paper away and probably not respond if you try to submit again.
3. The reason for such insistence is the desire to step into Shining World of the top scientific community, the circle of Einstein, Hawking, Michio Kaku.
But in order to do that, you have to be able to produce the ideas at that level. And, I'm sorry to tell you, you are not at the level of Einstein, Hawking, or Kaku. You aren't even at the level of a failing undergraduate.