By "Chaim" (posted on Factnet, September 18, 2003 - 1:24 pm)
When I left, I wrote a note specifying my reason for departure. In it, I outlined why it was I felt I needed to leave. It largely centered around the organization's response to the 9-11 attacks.
In the months since, I have come to other reasons why I needed to leave, but the one I mention above was the first and most immediate one that came up, and the one that eventually caused me to part ways with the group.
It, in itself, exposed some things about the group to me that I was not willing to go along with for much longer, which is why I left.
When discussing my departure from the group, would it not make more sense to say "Chaim left because he found that he didn't totally agree with some of the things that Lyn was doing, and found that he could not work for him anymore"?
That would make sense, but it's not what the organization does. Instead they say that someone was "blocked" or "impotent" or had, as you say, "confused parents."
I didn't even discuss with them my decision to leave until it was already made.
When I mention, below, the "possible negative light," I mean that protecting LaRouche's image and infallibility is one of the top priorities of his movement. It's better to use words like "blocked" or "confused" than to simply say "Chaim didn't like the strong focus on fundraising right after 9-11" or "chaim didn't like the way that Lyn and his organization regarded people mourning in the aftermath of 9-11" or "Chaim decided that the organization was a cult, and wanted no more part of it." That highlights a possible problem with the organization or Lyn, instead of highlighting a problem with me (or my parents) solely.
As quoted here: http://lyndonlarouche.org/leaving-larouche.htm