Funny that the SB is claimed not to be open to interpretation - because interpreting is what gives meaning to a text. Every text must be interpreted in order to be understood. So "there is no interpretation" is nonsense. The actual meaning of that claim is "my interpretation is the only correct one".
There are quite a lot of more interpretations to the SB. Any text has to be read with author, targeted audience, time and place in mind - basics of hermeneutics. For example, Avon just wanted to get something from Lavey since his lectures were popular enough, so he copied great parts of Redbeard and Nietzsche - which, in itself, is nothing bad. Only that he didn't acknowledge these sources, especially concerning Redbeard, makes the SB a bit of a bootleg.
Another approach is that the SB is quite a telling document about the California of the 60s. Many things concerning e.g. sexuality are just common sense today, but in the days, they were not - otherwise, they would not have been worth writing them down. I mean, the SB doesn't tell anything about washing your hands after visiting the bathroom because this is just normal, no one would buy a book with such statements.
IMO, the SB can only be understood with the extremely bourgeois 50s in mind. The 60s saw the hippies, the political changes with the Vietnam war and the protest movement, Martin Luther King.. here in Germany, the 68 generation with their slogan "Under the gowns / Is the musty odour of a thousand years"(referring to the universities) blew the same trumpet. There were similar tendencies also east of the Iron Curtain (which, however, the USSR shut down in 1968). So the 60s were a time of change, and Lavey has to be seen in that context.
