And about him it was said, “Forgive our iniquity, for it is great.”

If not Rabbenu Chaim HaLevi, is it still okay to rely on them (and say “may his name be blotted out”)? [, right?]
Rabbi Yosef Rosen (the Rogatchover Gaon) wrote about him, “an ignorant fool,” and stated that “he denies Divine Providence.”
Rabbi Meir Arik found words of heresy in his books, but did not want to send him a letter about it because sending him a letter defiles. (Wikipedia)

I have no idea whether they wrote this about him. If so, it reflects very badly on them. My words still stand.

I looked on Wikipedia (because I found it hard to believe) and didn’t find it. I found exactly the opposite from most of the leading rabbis of his time, except for a collection of fools, insolent people, and ignoramuses:
https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%94%D7%9D_%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%97%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%9F_%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A7
Where did you see these things on Wikipedia?

He saw it on Hamichlol; there it goes into more detail than Wikipedia:
https://www.hamichlol.org.il/%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91_%D7%90%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%94%D7%9D_%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%97%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%9F_%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A7#cite_ref-76

I think the question is inappropriate because it paints a false picture through selective presentation.
I got a certain impression from the question, went and read the Wikipedia and Hamichlol entries, and was amazed at how utterly different the picture that emerges there is.
It seems that the prevailing view in the Haredi rabbinate (!) was that Rabbi Kook was supremely holy, expert in the entire Torah, and spotless. On the margins of the camp, a few came out against him, for various political and ideological reasons.
Anyone familiar with historical disputes between streams in Judaism knows that this little friction is laughable in historical perspective. (For example: Hasidim and Lithuanians [Mitnagdim].)

I read there, and there is a surprising similarity to what appears on Wikipedia. It is clearly copied entirely, including the wording. So it is pretty clear that this is not additional detail; rather, on Wikipedia the editors who favored Rabbi Kook made sure to omit the information that did not suit them, as is customary in their circles.
By the way, I did not see any such statement there from Rabbi Chaim of Brisk.

Hamichlol is by definition a censored and expanded version of Wikipedia.

As for Rabbi Kook among the Haredi public (for better or worse): today his status is not at all what it was during his lifetime. Today he is disqualified in the most absolute way, and you will never hear anyone saying anything in his name or learning from his books, etc. (and truthfully there also isn’t much to see there in his library besides strange language and strange ideas).
“In general, our master the Hazon Ish, the founder and supreme leader of the Haredi public and its establisher in the Holy Land after the Holocaust, spoke sharply—even once on the eve of Yom Kippur!”

What does “censored and expanded” mean? Who censors, and why?

Indeed, today’s Haredi world is largely an erev rav. That is exactly what I wrote.

They are the public that studies Torah with no outside wisdom at all, so their opinion is Torah opinion…

Ron,
I didn’t understand everything you wrote, but I think you are mistaken. Today people in the Haredi public simply do not relate much to Rabbi Kook, and when they do relate to him, it is with respect. Following the discussion here, I spoke about the subject a few minutes ago with a Haredi man of standing (one I am not worried hid his opinion from me), and his words implied great respect for Rabbi Kook. We spoke mainly historically, and in his eyes there was an ideological dispute between sides that respected one another, and the harshest expression he knows of (which means: an expression that perhaps entered the Haredi outlook) is, “His love of the Jewish people led him astray.”
The ideological difference between the sectors back then was mainly over “the beginning of redemption,” and accordingly also the attitude toward Zionism. And today the difference is mainly purely sociological.
I know the Haredi public well and in depth, and based on my familiarity, there is great disdain in the Haredi public toward the Religious Zionist “Mizrachi types” because they are perceived as modern and lax in matters of Jewish law (the opposition to Zionism has in practice long since passed), and of course, more generally, human beings like to look down on the other side, and this is mutual between the sectors.
Aside from that, I do not see among them any disqualification of the Religious Zionist public, and all the more so not of Rabbi Kook, who was himself a kind of Haredi figure.
Among the Religious Zionists, if anything, the antagonism is much greater (they asked Rabbi Aviner whether to appoint a Haredi math teacher or a secular one, and he answered that a secular one is preferable. I find it very hard to believe that a Haredi person would answer similarly).

That is exactly what I wrote: a crooked mindset. And as is well known from the letter of the Aderet, who explained why Haredim oppose both Zionism and secular education: one who has no education is a fool, and therefore opposes Zionism.

P.S. Where is the letter, or can you post a link or something? (It’s very interesting.)
In any case, there were also Haredim who had as much sense as he and you do.

It appears in Ehud Luz’s book, I think, Parallel Lines Meet.
Despite their being Haredim. Enough said.

Thanks.
And despite the fact that you’re antisemitic…..