I can hardly blame the referee for his dishonest report, aimed at dismissing my article, since he (understandably) does not want to give up on his too many awards (being the main representative of the “Kolmogorov school” in Princeton) but I would blame both the editor‑in‑chief Michael J. Hopkins and the handling editor Mike Hill for coordinating their deviantly unprofessional action with the referee whose authority would then “justify” (as they hoped) widely shutting their four eyes on the protruding fallacy of the claims which he made up for describing my article.
Not only did they fail to adhere to high standards, but they did not even reach mediocrity, remaining well below it. Now the two together seem ready for reassignment to less responsible and more monitorable tasks.