Z is for … Zeitgeist, Generation Z and Le Z, the presumed candidate

Zemmour’s Le Suicide Français + mags 2014-2021

The man who alerted me to the collapse of Western civilisation might soon be President of France. He did so at an event I attended on 4 November 2014: Eric Zemmour was in London to talk about his new book, Le Suicide français (The suicide of France – LSF for short).

I was watching with fascination the many people coming in after me from a cold evening to attend the one-off debate with this notorious French rabble rouser, far-right pundit and xenophobic polemicist (all expressions copyright of the MSM). More people came than the organisers expected, and it was standing room only. The room burst into enthusiastic applause more than once and at the end, he got a standing ovation with prolonged enthusiastic clapping. I experienced first-hand what a great debater he was. And to have his ideas, deemed “rancid”, voiced aloud in a receptive room was exciting and not least for realising I was not alone.

This was more than a conference to present a book, this felt nearly like a political meeting. The last question of the evening was whether he considered becoming involved politically. He replied that he was already more political than most politicians: fighting for his ideas is political.

Many attendees queued to buy a copy of the book and have it signed by him. He was clearly enjoying himself, chatting with people, shaking hands, posing for photos.

After his London visit I could not believe my eyes when I read reports in French newspapers: not only did they greatly misrepresent his views but also the warm welcome they received. It was the first time (but alas not the last) that I thought “What? Are we talking about the same event? I was there, that’s not what I saw and experienced”.

I still had in those days the naive expectation that the so-called quality press reported news more or less in accordance with the facts. The irony is that part of Zemmour’s thesis is that the establishment’s views are either in denial or just propaganda. And I had just witnessed it at work first-hand! This event brought home to me the disconnect between reality on the ground and the way the media misrepresent it to keep audiences as unaware, meek, weak and isolated as possible.

It has remained for me a seminal event.

Zemmour book signing in London


In a thick tome, Zemmour chronicled the decline of France from 1970 (post May’68 and post de Gaulle’s rule) to 2007. He decrypted France’s moral, economic and cultural self-destruction under the impact of mass immigration, political correctness and American power. He described the disintegration of the white male in parallel to the feminisation, the halalisation and the self-destructive self-hatred of French society – a phenomenon repeated in most Western countries, as we well know.

Brief and incisive chapters, in the style of a journalist not of an historian or a philosopher, made him accessible to all. He decrypted equally songs, films, laws, speeches and football matches. Anyone could relate to what he dissected.

By the time he came to London he was selling 15,000 copies a day, some 300,000 copies already sold (at 22,90€, not cheap)! To date he has sold over 500,000 paper copies of LSF.

It was published three years before Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe. You finish both books informed to the hilt but utterly depressed, though grateful to the authors for having reminded you of events you lived through or knew about but had not understood properly at the time as you could not place them in their proper frame of reference. But in both cases, you can’t help thinking: They don’t offer a solution; there is no solution; this is too far gone.

And still we go on. But for many, reading LSF marked the moment when somebody revealed for them the mechanics of the progressive ideology destroying what was dear to them. They accepted the responsibility that you cannot go back to being unaware, – you will now decrypt everything you see with your new decoding grid, courtesy of Zemmour.

Articles on Zemmour + interview of Douglas Murray

Incidentally, Murray’s book was published in French last month under the title of “L’Etrange Suicide de l’Europe” – an echo to Zemmour’s Suicide français – the word is better than “death” as it emphasises the fact that it is self-inflicted.

Z Out of the Night When the Full Moon is Bright

Zemmour has not come from nowhere, as some people think, for he was already known in France, had a weekly column in the centre-right paper, Le Figaro, and regular appearances on French television and radio stations – since 2003. He was already a popular figure for a number of French people, regularly denounced by critics as racist, sexist, homophobic and islamophobic.

His central point written in 2009 was:

“For half a century, the French nation has dissolved itself into Europe, globalization, immigration and multiculturalism.”

Zemmour is a pure product of meritocracy and of the old French model of “assimilation”; the son of Jewish Berbers, French citizens who emigrated from Algeria in the early 1950s, he grew up in a working-class suburb of Paris. Passionate about history, he graduated from Sciences-Po (the French LSE) but failed at l’ENA (the graduate school for the administrative elite), and has been a political journalist since 1986, later essayist.

The fact that he admires Napoleon and de Gaulle won’t endear him to GPers, but I hope you’ll read on anyway! Historian John Keiger helpfully explained to Daily Telegraph readers (6 October 2021):

“For all its apparent novelty and shock value, the Zemmour phenomenon is a continuation of a two century old powerful strand of the French Right: Bonapartism. From Emperor Napoleon I, to his nephew Napoleon III in the 1850s and 1860s, to General de Gaulle himself, the Bonapartist tradition has sculptured France’s political culture and institutions, most notably the Fifth Republic. Placing state and people above intermediary bodies, like parliament, Bonapartism clamours for a powerful executive, direct consultation of the people through plebiscites (Napoleon III) and referendums (de Gaulle). Eschewing liberalism it allocates a dirigiste role to the State in economic life while emphasising national sovereignty and independence on the international scene.

Zemmour’s policies, whether it be referendums on immigration, state control of key economic sectors, withdrawal from NATO and rejection of EU directives, sit squarely in that tradition as well as presenting a powerful critique of Emmanuel Macron’s liberal globalism.”

The following chimes with many French people, who are now prepared to approve and express publicly such ideas and are heard at last:

“I am for the grandeur of France, the strong state and the respect of the cultural tradition of France.”

To his supporters, he vouched recently (16 September 2021):

“I know that my fight is just and I am proud to continue to uphold my convictions, thus becoming the spokesperson for a majority of French people gagged by political correctness.”

His outspoken defiance of woolly political correctness caught up with him several times. In 2011 he was found guilty of provocation to racial discrimination and in 2019 he was found guilty of inciting religious hatred. What the media forget to say when they gleefully remind you of his judicial problems is that to date, he has won more cases (ten) than he has lost (two), when he was fined and one of these convictions is not final.

For what he has said about Islam, he is currently under full police protection. As recently as 27 September he had to be bundled into a car and whisked away after death threats in his direction.


The publication of his new book, La France n’a pas dit son Dernier Mot (hereafter FDM) – France has not said its last word – was always scheduled for Autumn 2021. But at the end of June his publisher of 10 years which had published five of his best-sellers abruptly announced it was not going to publish it. They declared it was too political and took the risk of a shocking breach of their contract with the author. The establishment was clearly becoming alarmed. In the end the book was self-published, quite a task in itself but worthwhile: 250 000 copies initially printed and distributed, 20 000 pre-orders on Amazon, 80 000 copies sold in the first week, straight to number 1 in the bestseller lists the moment it came out. Quite a financial coup as well as a publishing one – money being used this Autumn to finance a promotional tour across France.

It is a kind of journal, starting in 2006. Brief entries, prompted by a national event or a meeting Z had with various personalities. He reveals what they said to him, often over a meal or a drink, often in partial agreement with his analysis and his conclusions. They would never want to be seen saying it but they know there is a civilisation war going on. Is he trying thus to stiffen the spine of some of the presidential candidates and end up supporting him/her? Or is the promotional tour of the book a pretext to rallying people and assessing political support for himself?

He also develops some of his themes. He has absorbed Renaud Camus’s theory of “le grand remplacement” (the great replacement). They met in 2011. Camus, borrowing from de Gaulle, said:

“If there is a new population in France, then we will no longer have our own history. It will be another people’s history, and another people’s civilisation… France has been very good at integrating individuals. But you cannot integrate whole peoples. If immigrants come from a different civilisation which they have no particular interest in abandoning, then they will be representative of that civilisation.”

The word “replacement (in the context of great replacement, population replacement) is not mentioned once in the 527 pages of LSF but is mentioned 17 times in the 342 pages of FDM!

I saw in the title an echo to Houellebecq’s Soumission / Submission. However the conclusion of the book is less hopeful than the title:

“But it is no longer a question of world and European hegemony, it is no longer a question of playing in the big leagues, of “keeping one’s rank”, to use the expression that General de Gaulle liked, it is to live or to die.”

When in Hungary at the end of September Zemmour explained: “Since the 1960s, our intellectuals, our elites, our universities have adopted, based on the American model, the concept that Allan Bloom has described so acutely: an attitude of deconstruction and rejection. They have convinced us that we are sinners. We are guilty of slavery, World War II, the holocaust, colonisation and the oppression of women, children, blacks, and Muslims. Just about everything. And in order to be absolved of these sins, we are capable of doing anything – including destroying our own civilization.”

Having read Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci who wrote that for the left to win, it had first to take over popular culture, Zemmour’s analysis is through that prism. According to him, “after deconstruction, and then derision, we are now in the phase of destruction. It is what I call the three Ds.”

So, time to act?

Presumed Candidate

The rumours that he might be a contender in the 2022 presidential elections have been growing since early this year. However they had been mooted in September 2015, when a 27-year old journalist at the Valeurs Actuelles news magazine published a novel entitled Une Election Ordinaire – in which Zemmour becomes President (against Hollande, set in 2016). This coincided with a poll, commissioned by the same VA mag, that found that 12% of French people would be prepared to vote for him in the 2017 presidential election.


September 2015: Lejeune’s book on Zemmour elected President + VA mag

In 2016 the powerful Sens Commun movement (anti-gay marriage etc; now called Mouvement Conservateur) asked him to be their candidate, as did Marine Le Pen (MLP) for the 2019 EU elections. Z declined.

Now he reveals in FDM how his son said to him: “You made the diagnosis a long time ago. Now it’s time to act.”

A whole support system is being put in place even before he declares. An association, Les Amis d’Eric Zemmour, that he does not (yet) endorse officially, set up at the end of 2020 became a political party in June. Then some 10,000 “Zemmour Président” posters appeared on hoardings in French towns and cities – put up by an association, Génération Z, a social-media led collective of over 2,000 young right-wingers (18 to 35 year olds, average age 24).

The Z youth wing’s president explained:

“In May ‘68 the youth wanted to shake up the established order. They have succeeded. We, in turn, want to shake up the disorder they created.”

I discovered Zemmour through his books but these Zoomers discovered him on TV. They grew up with him, watching, absorbing, his weekly TV talk shows. I don’t think there’s been a time since 2003, and especially since 2011, when Zemmour has not had a regular slot on TV.

One week before publication of FDM, on 8 September, the CSA (the broadcasting regulatory body) invented a new category, just for Zemmour, that of “presumed candidate”, which forces broadcasters to minutely count his speaking time (matched with that of declared candidates): the TV channels where he presented daily or weekly shows in effect had to remove him. It must have been gut-wrenching as he had between 800,000 and one million viewers every evening on CNews! (France’s rough equivalent to Fox News and much better than and less wimpish than GB News). Gut-wrenching for him too I suppose, from a financial point of view.

The CSA intervention was widely seen as an attempt to shut him up (no other political journalist has their work curtailed like that), where judges had previously failed.

The irony is that instead of appearing one hour on his nightly show (Mon-Thu), and one hour on a weekly one, he now appears (or is featured) morning, noon and night on all TV channels and radio stations. Reams of articles are published on paper and on-line commenting (and often protesting) his latest pronouncements. Moreover, he has created his own You Tube channel, and opened Linked-In, Instagram and finally TikTok accounts (he has been on Twitter since October 2019). A month after being removed from CNews, his audience doubled on social media with some 600,000 followers on all platforms so far.

Pundits and politicians began several years ago to speak of the “zemmourisation of minds” – but if they viewed it as a fringe effect, it is now in full swing. They would like to shut him up but they know he is trending on all platforms. He can’t be the TV host anymore, but he is now a ubiquitous TV guest. Go figure.

Have the publisher, the CSA and the media as a whole contributed to the Zemmour effect ?

He has, as I write, beaten MLP to second place in opinion polls facing incumbent Macron. Actually, I have had to rewrite this sentence several times since I started this article, so meteoric is his rise.

In mid-June, in the first opinion poll of its kind, he was at 5.5% of voting intentions (same as the Green and Socialist candidates); at the end of August, 7%; 8% in early September, 11% by the end. On 1st October, he was at 15%; on Wednesday 6 October, he was, gasp, at 17%, thus overtaking MLP as the challenger to Macron (to whom he would lose 55-45 according to those polls). One week later, on 13 October, he received 18% of voting intentions if the candidate selected by the Right was Michel Barnier (17% with the others).

It is worth noting that MLP has been the second round challenger in the polls since April 2013, and this demotion to third place is seismic.

Also worth noting that it is unprecedented that a “presumed candidate” who is not yet a candidate qualifies for the second round of the presidential election! There is definitely such a thing as a Zemmour phenomenon.

The rest of the pack

Zemmour likes to quote Mitterrand saying that whoever wins the presidential election is the one who asks the fundamental question and knows how to answer it; the one who imposes his theme. Whatever he does next, Z has already changed the conversation for the other parties. After MLP, Pécresse and Bertrand, two Centre-Right candidates vying for candidacy, have now also spoken of a referendum on immigration. As has Barnier, who has also called for France to regain its ‘legal sovereignty” and for a five-year moratorium on immigration! As for the Macron government, it has announced it would reduce by 50% the number of visas granted to Algerians, Moroccans and Tunisians. Just as Farage influenced British politics so Zemmour is having a profound effect on French politics. A far cry from the days in the 1970s and 80s when Le Pen Père was given pariah status and his opinions suppressed.

It is quite an indictment of French politics that neither the Right nor the Left has a credible candidate to face  the current President. Macron appeared “from nowhere” in 2017, the then incumbent was not even a candidate, and the candidate of the Right (i.e. the gaullist Les Républicains, LR for short), François Fillon, had been judicially destroyed. In the intervening five years, no convincing candidate has emerged. Even though it’s been clear for several years that the French electorate does not want another Macron-MLP duel. LR will choose its candidate on 4 December: the winner might well be a man who has actually left the party to run solo! Or it might be Michel Barnier, scourge of Brexiteers and recent convert to a form of neo-sovereignty! The candidate for the Socialists is Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris, who has turned the capital into a corrupt, ugly and dangerous sh*thole, and who scores at the moment 5% of voting intentions.

What happened to MLP and her pole position against Macron?

Who does the bigging up of Zemmour benefit? Not MLP. Who is, through him, putting pressure on LR to put forward a right-wing candidate and not a centrist one as they seem to be about to do? They seem to have under-estimated his appeal; it might backfire.

Houellebecq supports him. Brigitte Bardot sees his candidacy as “a beautiful thing for France”. Jean-Marie Le Pen will vote for Z if he is better placed than his daughter! MLP’s niece, Marion Maréchal, has just said “Perhaps, we’ll have to ask ourselves at some point, who is in the best position.” It is to be noted here that Zemmour is closer personally to MLP’s father and niece than to MLP herself.

MLP started the “dédiabolisation”, detoxification, of her father’s party, the FN, at the moment when many people, under the pressure of events, some tragic, were beginning to see what was going on and realising the danger their society was in. A strategic mistake it seems. Politicians, including her, don’t seem prepared to accept that people are more to the Right than them. She changed the name of her party from Front National (founded by her father in 1972) to Rassemblement National, the year after her defeat against Macron in 2017.

She dropped her support for leaving the EU and the euro partly because Brexit got bogged down in long-drawn and damaging negotiations for several years – the French could imagine the mess Frexit would cause the country. However, once she stopped talking about Islam and dropped leaving the euro from her programme, it became clearer that she is on the Left of the political spectrum (economically, societally). And thus she created a vacuum on the Right that Z has seized.

MLP had started losing voters, and members, in the mayoral elections of 2020 and the regional ones of 2021 (she unexpectedly failed to win a single region). The most recent elections were characterised by a high abstention rate, 65.31% (to which some politicians seem to want to remedy with the introduction of postal voting and of voting rights at 16, whereas the main reason people did not bother going out to vote was that they thought all politicians on offer were mediocre and irrelevant!).

Recent polls show that Zemmour appeals to about 30% of MLP’s voters, about 30% of Fillon’s, and also to the no-longer voters. Z’s voters and MLP’s are sociologically complementary (Z’s supporters tend to be older, more affluent and more educated).  These polls seem to show he has taken as many as MLP’s voters as he was going to; he is now eating into the traditional Right vote. In the first round, it does not matter that Z is splitting MLP’s vote as long as one of them comes second, and at the moment it looks that way. In the run-off, not all Zemmour’s voters will vote for MLP, but hers will vote for Z. He’d need to get more votes from the Right to hope to win against Macron, voters who would not vote for MLP. Both would get the votes from the other “souverainiste” candidates, and she might get some from the extreme Left! The traditional Left and the Greens will vote for Macron in the second round.

A Programme

Since 2015 France has been shaken by too many gruesome terrorist attacks. Its citizens want hard policies on immigration and security. Zemmour is quite outspoken on these issues. However it is a misrepresentation to say, as the MSM do, that he is obsessed with Islam and immigration. He is capable of being multi-subject as his many years as TV show host easily prove. As recently as 2 October, when the naysayers were bleating, how can he be a candidate as he does not have a programme, he published an article in the weekly centre-right news mag Le Point entitled, “Our energy sovereignty requires a nuclear revival.” At his book signing in Lille on the same day, he raised several economic policies.

His political adviser and éminence grise, Sarah Knafo, is a 28-year old graduate of the ENA, a high-ranking civil servant at the Court of Auditors, currently on leave. Some big names are circulating: Loïk Le Floch-Prigent, former CEO of Elf, Gaz de France and SNCF (French railways), advises him on economic issues. He and Z are proponents of the reindustrialisation of the country, for “industrial sovereignty”. Z also consults the former CEO of Axa, Henri de Castries (on the Right whereas LLFP is on the Left); a banker called Jonathan Nadler (Rothschild, then JP Morgan), who heads an economics unit for him and is rumoured to be writing his manifesto; and Catholic billionaire, Charles Gave. He meets weekly with a group called “Les entrepreneurs avec Zemmour”.

On 15 October, 50 named teachers started a group and a website, “Les enseignants avec Zemmour”, because education is critical to the defence of identity – a very brave and promising move.

His team have admitted that they are overwhelmed by his current success; they expected these kinds of poll figures in December and as a result they’re not ready. One big obstacle to his candidacy is gathering 500 mayoral endorsements. Touring across France should help.

In a nutshell, his programme would centre around what he calls the five “I”:

 « identité, immigration, indépendance, instruction, industrie. »

But GP readers will want to know what his views on the EU are.


Until Brexit I would not say that Zemmour knew very much about contemporary Britain but as he is a “souverainiste” (i.e. a proponent of national sovereignty, border controls and cultural identity), opposed to the EU since the Maastricht Treaty, he has voiced his approval for Brexit. The UK leaving the EU marks for him the great return of the nation-state and the emancipation of the people from progressive allegiances.

He has not voiced support for Frexit as he says this would divide opinion at a time when 70% of people (according to an opinion poll) agree with him on the issue of mass immigration and its consequences – a tactical decision, the politician in him speaking.

Of course at some point his contradictions will catch up with him: France cannot regain sovereignty over immigration, tariffs, industrial policy etc while in the EU. As the French electorate is not ready to consider Frexit, he does not want to risk losing support from certain quarters.

Here in the UK the issue of the headscarf/hijab/burkini and loss of Christian forenames, symbols of the islamisation of the public sphere, would not arise (I mean, they cannot be corrected). Zemmour is causing fierce controversy by insisting on Christian names as part of assimilation and this is seized as a focal point to vilify him. However far-fetched or offensive it is considered, it is symbolic of the issues of national and cultural identity; of assimilation v. cohabitation. In brief, until 1993, only a Christian name (in French, the word is “prénom” – before the name, i.e. there is no religious connotation) taken from the calendar of mainly saints could be given to a child; other names were tolerated but were in a small minority. President Mitterrand changed that and foreign forenames started to abound: 18% of newborn boys in 2016 had a Muslim first name (a much higher percentage in certain areas).

According to Zemmour the old 1803 law allowed for the assimilation of all children and should be reinstated. His contention is how can the children of immigrants feel French, give allegiance to France, be truly integrated when their parents called them Mohamed or Zohra.

Incidentally Shahnour Vaghinag Aznavourian, among others, frenchified his name to Charles Aznavour and Anne Hidalgo was born in Spain Anna Maria.

This topic aside, halalisation, islamification, issues of national identity and security, are as relevant in Britain as in France. So where is the British Zemmour? Not just someone with similar ideas but with the media savviness and the historical perspective. AM Waters, Tommy Robinson, Batten are more or less saying the same thing but they didn’t get very far. I leave it to you to discuss why BTL.


Zemmour’s rallies this Autumn, sorry, his book-signing sessions, in Toulon, Nice, Lille, Nîmes (so far, more in the pipeline) look like mini rallies à la Trump. Queues outside, packed venues with thousands, chanting of “Zemmour Président!”… There’s a fever; a momentum is building up.

He had predicted Trump’s victory in September 2015. In FDM he wrote: “Trump, the Huntington for Dummies!” (Samuel P. Huntington, author of “The Clash of Civilizations” and “Who are We?” – this is typical Zemmour, a literary or historical reference that sends his readers to their dictionaries or search engines).

He also recounts how an elderly but flamboyant wealthy French woman, long-time resident of the US and active in the women for Trump movement, came to see him and said: we looked around hard and we have decided, YOU are the French Trump!

He does not deny that the cover of his new book is meant to be modelled on Trump, whom he admires for having won over the political correctness of the media, the institutions and the judiciary.

Like Trump, he likes provocation, or rather what seems like provocation is just straight talking; they’re both waging war against Woke (le wokisme); they know how to speak to the people; they have both placed immigration and economic sovereignty at the forefront; despite being part of the system, they present a real alternative.

They are though very different personalities, even physically – a force of nature having a quasi-physical rapport with the crowds at his rallies; a small and slight man, probably more at ease in a tv studio or in front of a blank page!

Unlike Trump who changed his political affiliation several times, Z has been consistent for 25 years. But both wear like a badge of honour being called “populist”.

American commentators have drawn interesting parallels between Zemmour and Pat Buchanan, a journalist, adviser to Nixon and Reagan, and political talk show host. He never won the Republican nomination but beating the drum for 25 years for right-wing populism, he paved the way for DJT’s victory.

The paradox about Z is that he is seen by all as a well-spoken Paris intellectual, a master at rhetoric, but his fans don’t feel that he is talking down to them. They say they might not understand everything but his erudition makes them feel more intelligent!

Trump and Zemmour’s books


As Gavin Mortimer wrote in early October in the Spectator:

“I’ve written before about how the French electorate have never forgiven the political establishment for ignoring their ‘no’ vote on the EU constitution in 2005. Add to that their refusal to listen to voters’ concerns about mass immigration, islamic extremism, identity politics and violent crime and is it any wonder that they will back the first person who dares speak up for them?”

It seems unlikely now that he will not put himself forward as a candidate. The success of his rallies, his progression in the polls, his trending online and on air would make his non-candidacy incomprehensible to many. As he has repeated that “everyone knows MLP cannot win” and he has poured contempt on the LR candidates, he could not credibly encourage his supporters to vote for anybody but him. It seems there is only one way ahead: Carpe Diem.

This pre-campaign is characterised by hatred and the hysterisation of political debate. So reminiscent of Trump. Who will diabolise Z the most? Words used in recent weeks about him include: a virus, brown plague (i.e. n*zi), Taliban, Petainist, fascist… Hidalgo, in a Hilary Clinton “basket of deplorables” moment, commented on Zemmour’s spectacular surge in the polls: “I am absolutely disgusted to the point of nausea at the rise of such a ‘character’, a revisionist, in French political life.”

His readers and viewers know that one trait that characterises him is courage, all too rare in politicians, as well as honesty. GPers will forgive me, I hope, a quote from Napoleon, that might make Zemmour blush:  “Courage cannot be counterfeited, it is a virtue immune to hypocrisy.”

Is there a chance Zemmour can be elected President of the French republic? The question is less ridiculous than a month ago. In the latest poll quoted above, the score is 57-43 and there is six months to go. On the evening when he reached 18% of voting intentions, a journalist strikingly said during Zemmour’s old TV show: “Le Z can win”.

Another question is: Can Z change France more by being elected or by carrying on bearing witness to the changes and symptoms he decrypts? Farage changed the course of British history despite of or because he didn’t win a national mandate. Zemmour, book after book, broadcast after broadcast, candidate or not candidate, has already managed to change the terms of the national debate and might still permanently alter the political landscape.

Allow me to channel my inner Zemmour here by ending on a quote by Victor Hugo (who, interestingly, dreamed of becoming President):

“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”

If Zemmour is the voice of the silent majority, it looks like they are going to have their say.

To stay in the theme, read GP Joe Slater’s 2020 series, The (Postwar) Fall of France, in four articles – in particular on LSF:

The (Postwar) Fall of France, Part Three

Examples of not ordinary book signings:

Jonathan Miller of the Spectator was at the Béziers book signing:


© text and photos Sunshine&Showers 2021