Some people might think that the Archangel Michael slaying the Dragon (a mythical creature) and St George slaying the Dragon were really one and the same, or two symbols for the same thing, but I don't. I believe they are as distinct as Judaism and Christianity, or the Old and the New Testaments, with a corresponding distinction between metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics on the one hand, that of the Archangel Michael and what I would take to be a He-Dragon, and metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry on the other hand, that of St George and what I would hold to be a She-Dragon, since I have long identified pseudo-metachemistry with a pseudo-female subordination to a male hegemony in metaphysics, and this would contrast with a pseudo-male subordination, in pseudo-metaphysics, to a female hegemony in metachemistry, the kind of subordination more characteristic of both Judaism and the Old Testament, with a kind of contemporary parallel in the proverbial 'red under the bed' that Republicans, in the traditional American party political context, have tended to brand certain Democrats as being, all the better to slay them by using whatever means are most conducive to keeping them down and, as it were, in an inferior position.

No, if you believe in St George, no matter how fanciful or mythical the dragon paradigm for a kind of barbarous threat to culture may happen to be, then there is no reason, so far as I can see, why one should also believe in the Archangel Michael, much less to equate their actions on the surface of it pretty similar with one and the same principle. Nothing, it seems to me, could be further from the case!