Sorry for the late response but here's what I have to say:

capitalist takeover did happen

I disagree with this, if a capitalist takeover did happen, that means that the ruling class of society are the bourgeoisie, who seek to maintain their power and class position. The thing that makes me doubt this is why there was no neoliberal transformation and integration with the world capitalist system after Deng's reforms in China and the collapse of the USSR in the DPRK. Instead, this national bourgeois maintained Juche even at the nation's breaking point in the Arduous March. If the bourgeois aim to maintain their own class position, then "peaceful" reunification of the south would be their primary objective.

I still do agree with the analysis that a national capitalist class does indeed exist and that class relations in Korea are far from being eliminated, but I still believe that the WPK is still in first control of the state above the desires of the national bourgeois classes. I see this as similar to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics where the capitalist class still has to answer to a workers party (SWCC is probably the poster child for marxist revisionism though)

My own view of the Mount Paektu bloodline is that it serves a important purpose in societal cohesion (and production of a unique North Korean culture) and preventing a full capitalist takeover of the state. Of course, with so little data and communication publicly available this may not be the case. Of course, leftists like us who want to genuinely study the DPRK are prevented from doing so by imperialists who constantly provoke the DPRK and create a permanent terror.

Also "parasocial" seems too pejorative. There are plenty of examples of spaces in North Korean culture that aren't dominated by mount paektu imagery (Mansudae's socialist realism, traditional Korean art before the revolution, opening up burger places and malls). In a nation that is for decades been terrorized by imperialists and their compradors and been ritually denied development unless they give up the workers revolution, I see the Mount Paektu bloodline (the rhetoric and political imagery, especially the (in)-famous portraits of Kim Ill Sung and Kim Jong Ill side by side) as a strategy for national unity and workers propaganda.

Supreme People's Assembly votes

Yeah it is called a rubber stamp parliament for a good reason, but I'd like to assume that democratic discussion wasn't left out entirely and this is a case of democratic centralism at play. Again, it's very hard for me to imagine the DPRK surviving for this long under siege if they weren't organized from top to bottom.

declaring that the RoK, not the USA, is the "principal enemy" of the DPRK

And only less than a year later (January 2024 to December 2024) that the ROK leadership attempted a self-coup and very well looked like the preparations for restarting the Korean war (South Korea still has mandatory military conscription designed just to invade the North that no Korean liberal has been able to cross even after the fall of the military dictatorship era). The dialogue for reunification is futile as South Korea becomes more reactionary and falls into deeper capitalist crisis. It also becomes more futile as the trauma of the 38th parallel splitting apart families fades away with time. It may also be the case that North Korean enthusiasm for reunification has become less popular among the people as no lasting normalization or relief has ever been produced out of it.

Also, reunification isn't left off the table but that peaceful reunification without revolution is impossible ("completely occupying, subjugating and reclaiming")

• http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2024/202401/news16/20240116-02ee.html (https://archive.is/3OaFd)

Respected Comrade Kim Jong Un Makes Policy Speech at 10th Session of 14th SPA

The north-south relations have been completely fixed into the relations between two states hostile to each other and the relations between two belligerent states, not the consanguineous or homogeneous ones any more. This is the present situation of the relations between the north and the south today caused by the heinous and self-destructive confrontational maneuvers of the ROK, a group of outsiders' top-class stooges, and the true picture of the Korean peninsula just unveiled before the world.
...
There is no provision specifying such definition in the existing constitution of our country. Since our Republic definitely defined the ROK as a foreign country and the most hostile state after completely eliminating the original concept contradictory to reality that the ROK is the partner for reconciliation and reunification and the fellow countrymen, it is necessary to take legal steps to legitimately and correctly define the territorial sphere where the sovereignty of the DPRK as an independent socialist nation is exercised.

Also, later in the speech:

The DPRK will never tolerate the heinous infringement on its sovereignty by the U.S. which is wantonly trampling down and plundering world peace and stability with illegal double standards, regarding anti-imperialist independence as its immutable and consistent first national policy, but will strive to realize international justice based on respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and establish a new international order.

While this paragraph is present:

And I think it is right to specify in the relevant paragraph of our constitution that such linguistic remnants misinterpreting the north and the south as fellow countrymen as "3 000-ri tapestry-like land" and "80 million compatriots" are not used in the political, ideological, mental and cultural life of our people, and that education should be intensified to instill into them the firm idea that ROK is their primary foe and invariable principal enemy.

It would be inaccurate to assume that this means a rejection of reunifying the peninsula and a shared dream of a unified Korean nation, if anything, this reads as a defense of a workers revolution in spite of the shared national identity and lineage between the peoples of the ROK and DPRK and a rejection of the idealist position of reunifying a workers revolution/national liberation state with a capitalist liberal dictatorship under the direct thumb of the global hegemonic power. Any South Korean leftist who allied themselves with the North previously (as pretty much has to be done since any leftist worker's sentiment is considered a North Korean thought crime by the ROK NIS) isn't going to reject the North after this.