This isn't a particularly convincing article because

(1) You mostly pick the worst examples you can find from evolutionary psychology (and I disagree that these are promoted by the field any longer--if you think so, why don't you quote some recent work from a prominent figure?)

(2) You almost never give any evidence for any of your points. For instance, you just state that evolutionary psychologists believe in tribalism as if this is totally a WEIRD phenomenon...and...provide...exactly zero evidence about whether it's widespread or not.

(3) The few times you do give evidence, it doesn't support your point very well. For instance, if we grant that Blanchard is correct in the claim that there are regions and millennia where war was absent (dubious), it would still only show that culture can suppress war, not that war isn't innate. (It does leave the issue unresolved.) Furthermore, even if there was a start date 13,000 years ago (except even chimpanzees engage in violent behavior analogous to our wars, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War), that's plenty of time for selective pressures to favor alleles that lead us to being more warlike, if this led to an evolutionary advantage at the time.

and

(4) The main alternative you offer is anthropology, which has its own extensive set of issues on average (also lots of WEIRD ideas, assumptions that tiny samples are representative of large populations, that contemporary technologically primitive societies are representative of historical societies when technological development was at a similar level, and so on)...so you really have to argue point-by-point.

So overall I'm strongly convinced that you don't like Pinker's ideas very much, and you don't like evolutionary psychology at all, but everything beyond that is pretty hard to be confident in.