Is history really so universalistic (even when similar events happen in different contexts) that, as George Santayana (1905) once famously wrote, “[t]hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”? This more universalistic view of history can be contrasted with an opposing view which is more relativistic in orientation, as shown by the equally known remark by Winston Churchill that “[h]istory is written by the victor,” to the extent that what is regarded as true in history today may not be so in another era when a new victor comes into power. (THEX 2011) So, which of the two views is correct here? Contrary to these opposing views (and other ideas as will be discussed in the book), history, in relation to both universality and relativity, is neither possible or impossible, nor desirable or undesirable to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. Of course, this challenge to the opposing views about history does not suggest that the study of history is controversial at best, or that those fields (related to the study of history) like political science, economics, military studies, anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, theology, literature, ethics, and so on should be rejected too. Needless to say, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Rather, this book offers an alternative, better way to understand the future of history, especially in the dialectic context of universality and relativity—while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favoring any one of them or integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other. Instead, this book offers a new theory (that is, the multifold theory of history) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way. If successful, this seminal project is to fundamentally change the way that we think about history, from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what the author originally called its “post-human” fate.