I gave my viewpoint on the matter recently under the "Who are the current management?" thread, but to answer your question here, his money and power all come from Scientology, so he is not going to give up being in charge at any cost as long as there is even a slight hope of improvement. Currently he is making about 60 million per event through donos and event sales "for Scientology" plus 2-3 million per week through the orgs. He is in control of all of the money flows and can freely determine what they are used for.
He is in no way addicted to the Church. He hates especially upper management and the people in it and would rather find some other way of expanding Scientology, such as broad public dissemination through celebrity contacts.
It is his Scientology. He has no other life. To that degree he is trapped. I don't think he would have (besides his reputation) any trouble being in charge of a major wog corporation, so to that degree he isn't. It is a free choice for him and for some reason or other he has decided to follow this route.
Here's where it enters an unknown territory for me: Whether he believes in LRH tech or not. He certainly acts like he does and almost everything he does is based on LRH policy (I'm not talking about his freeform application of "ethics" here), usually surprisingly closely. It used to be a great wonder to us at the Int base to find LRH policies on things we were rather certain were DMs own bright ideas. I think any doubting soul would be quite surprised to find out how closely he does follow LRH policy. But, on the subject of the gray area: I don't know if he does it because he believes it is true and workable (quite possible) or if he is doing so because it is a good PR move to appear to be the most on-source person on the planet (also quite possible).
I've never been able to figure him out.
Victor
I figured DM out years ago.
You may or not know I had dozens of run-ins with him and CMO Int. during the Mission Holders meetings.
I liked him - very bright - very cunning - extremely serv facy
(But so was most management and exec types. The product of quickie grades.)
My assessment of DM and CMO Int execs were that most were failed study cases and almost ALL heavy abuse cases.
(That is they came out of very abusive environments and families, as did Hubbard.)
There are 3 ways to study:
1. Other determined.
2. Study to make self right.
3. Sudy to grow. usually means; study makes you wrong - but in being willing to be wrong, you can expand you knowledge and wisdom. To study in this manner you usually study for the greatest good.
DM and most CMO Int execs were in the catagory 2 state. Except Norman Starkey who could not study very well.
As for DM he was very much in desperate need for an identity - most abuse cases have no identity of their own.
Any identity they do choose is used as a weapon. This kind of identity has a tremendous fear of anyone else being powerful as they live constantly in a state of fear and threat. Further they are "perfectionists" having long ago worked out the only way not to be abused is; to be perfect - they also know that they can dominate anyone by pointing out their imperfections.
My assessment of DM was he studied to make self right.
As an exec and leader he was stuck at the beginning of learning to lead.
Having been in that state just before Scio - I was an ugly piece of work - I blamed everyone for my condition - I trusted no-one - in staff meetings I ferociously pointed out wrongnesses. Naturally I built tremendous resentment. But have no power and little cash reserves I had to modify my behavior.
DM has never needed to really modify his behavior except of course with celebrities, at public events and on TV.
LRH in his early days had to modify his behavior - he too never handled his hatred of others with power. The TV interview of Hubbard was Hubbard at his best trying to be charming and at the same time seething with hatred.
This is very dichotomous behavior - charming, charasmatic, warm and friendly - especially if they want something from you. - The stabbing you in the back, hyper-critical, underhanded, malicious and cold.
I made a very simple decision when dealing with DM and the CMO Int. - "To never allow that bunch of crazies to have control over my life!"
Alan