When describing something in reality, we have to have some substantial matter to discuss, but I couldn't find any concrete things in what you said. For the sake of discussion, I'll mention that I can also discount some of them.
* Not-self: I is myself, even though what are in myself can be changed. I tend to produce results of a certain kind, indicating some coherent originator of those results (my self). Could you elaborate on a very concrete example (something which can be verified) of not-self?
* Impermanence: Things which are not true are impermanent, but the truth itself is fixed and permanent.
* Dukkha: This is the most dangerous trap in Buddhism. It's not a fact of reality that we have to suffer. If we don't have good society, nobody can be guaranteed to be happy. There are ways in Buddha's teachings to be happy. However, Buddhist monks often use this in a bad way and teach that people can be free from all their suffering if they meditate sufficiently and properly - and that this is Nirvana. But that's absolutely wrong. Nirvana does not mean cessation of suffering. Every living creature must receive influence from the environment, and so even a man who experienced Nirvana many times still suffers from things like hunger and the cold. What is different about him is that he has no anguish and illusion about them, and so the hate disappears.
