This is a good example how a faulty translation misidentifies a basic concept and leads to erroneous conclusions.

Ask yourself this, would the fear of change seem like such an important concept that ancient people would seek to preserve this information by founding and sustaining a religious order? If your definition of dukkha is correct, and it merely refers to instability or change, it's hardly an idea that would inspire a billion people with fervent devotion. This fact is so obvious that it should cause you pause. Also, no modern Buddhist adherent would say their practice had anything to do with negating the fear of change. I have no doubt you quoted the translation correctly. I am positing that the translation is wrong, woefully wrong, and completely fails to capture why anyone would practice Buddhism.

Further, you repeat the claim that Buddhism is nihilistic, an old trope that Western academics have been incorrectly stuck on since the 19th century. Buddhism is not nihilistic. You clearly do not have a clear concept of the "self" as defined by Buddhists that they are concerned with.

First, let's tackle dukkha. Christians have a concept of original sin, our natural state is one of evil and wickedness that makes our thoughts impure and our actions sinful. Buddhists posit a similar problem. Dukkha is the natural state of an untrained mind. If left alone, the mind will pursue resources and pleasures it desires. Hedonism is the natural default for human behavior because of the mind's tendency to formulate problems and seek solutions.

The problem with Dukkha is emotional. When you are constantly being driven by a feeling of lack prompting you to search of scarce resources, you live in a constant state of anxiety over that perceived lack. Further, even when you find an object of desire, the satisfaction is fleeting and the mind will naturally return to its state of lack and pursue the next item, and the associated anxiety returns. The background feeling or mood characteristic of people's natural mind is one of low-grade anxiety and a feeling of dissatisfaction (because your always pursuing something). This feeling of unsatisfactoriness, that is Dukkha. Even Wikipedia gets this: "Its meaning depends on the context, and may refer more specifically to the "unsatisfactoriness" or "unease" of mundane life, not being at ease when driven by craving/grasping and ignorance."

What the Buddha discovered 2,500 years ago is that this feeling of unsatisfactoriness driven by the cravings of the untrained mind can be overcome. He overcame this through meditation, and he and his followers founded a religious order to preserve this information and pass it on from one generation to the next.

So to recap, Buddhism is not wrong. It does not contain a false premise. You have poorly defined the premise, and based your entire argument on a poor translation of dukkha.

On a personal note, as a 35+ year Buddhist practitioner, I can assure you that I have been working with the idea of dukkha I describe above, not the silly idea that fear is bad.

Second, and I'm sorry this is so long, but the "self" as you describe it is not what Buddhists try to negate. Trying to deny the existence of a "self" is a spiritual ditch of nihilism that Buddhists try to avoid. Buddhists don't deny they exist. Experienced practitioners acknowledge the narrative self, the collection of thoughts and ideas about who you are. What we seek to negate is the idea that the self exists intrinsically, independent of our life and being. Essentially, Buddhists deny the Christian soul. A Buddhist monk would tell you that everything, including the self, is ephemeral and in a constant state of change -- and that is not bad. It just means the self is not immutable, not eternal, but completely dependent upon circumstances. In short, the self has no intrinsic existence.

I appreciate your series on Buddhism. Your scholarship and research is top notch. I do believe you have a few holes in your understanding because you are approaching this question as an academic instead of a practitioner. Live with these concepts daily for 35+ years, work with them as a practitioner, and then you will see what is correct and what is mistaken.