What is the proof from the Pali canon texts that anatta means that of all things  none of them is self?

This sounds like he takes information from the neti neti philosophers in India and mixes it in with Buddhism to defend Buddhism when it is hard pressed and cannot prove conclusively that there is no self, anatta.

Neti neti is a yogic practice which means na iti, na iti, or this is not it, that is not it, where someone looks for something and finds many objects which are not what he is looking for.

Note as well that anatta is from the original Sanskrit which is anatma, where the prefix an means not. Atma is self. But self has varying meanings in Sanskrit with its ultimate meaning being self as qualified as brahman, which is the ultimate reality or energy.

Brahman is from the Vedas, particularly the philosophical part which is termed collectively as the Upanishads. Brahman means the ultimate reality but it is not specifically defined. It is vague and is left open as the ultimate reality. It is as if the philosopher who researched it did not come to a precise definition because it meant ultimate which is beyond sensual grasp.

Back to what I really want to inquire about, which is the first sentence, rewritten here:

What is the proof from the Pali canon texts that anatta means that of all things that none of them is self?

~~~~~~~

This is an indirect way of saying that the self cannot be objectified or targeted or contrasted. But this is exactly what brahman is according to the Upanishad and the Brahma Sutras.

This makes a good paradox but it does not explain how anyone is singled out with suffering? And why anyone wants to be liberated. It is the very issue of being objectified that motivates anyone to become a Buddhist in the first. Hence to deny that makes the Buddhist path seem escapist.

It is reduced to this:

When I was a self, I suffered. Therefore I became a Buddhist to no longer be a self, to no longer be targeted by nature or by personal agency for suffering. I will meditate myself out of existence, out of objectivity. That will solve the issue of being a target for trauma.