The "state" (really the police and the judiciary) have not made it illegal to be a racist or to hold racist views. If you think northeaster Asians are the master race, present your views without resorting to abuse, and maybe you'll gain followers who will vote for you, and convince others to.

Most far-right European parties promote arguably racist policies on the basis of "immigrants are taking our jobs and bludging off the taxpayer (going on welfare; being eligible for universal assistance)". Those arguments are valid and legal because they are not abusive. They also generally refer to recent immigrants, which disguises the issue of race, if indeed they are actually racist (I'm white but could become an immigrant to Europe).

This is not a reasoned, non-abusive argument. This is plain racism (although I read he's claiming he was addicted to alcohol and tranquilizers when he made the statements).

If you have the ability to make political statements based on race without being racist, one is entitled to do so without state interference.

If your 'argument' consists solely of racial abuse, I consider that outside of freedom of thought. For one, that's not 'thought', but prejudice.