So I am always fascinated with political spectrums. Today I was on facebook and somebody posted this diagram. I think I like this graphical depiction. What do you think of it? Also what are some alternative political spectrums you think reflect political diversity better than the right-left paradigm? 

Darwinism fits me the best here ...

It's probably the best I've seen. Nice colors, too!

Actually the more I look at it the more I like it. Pragmatically I'd place myself between confederalism and AnCap (think anti-federalists like Thomas Jefferson/Sam Adams/George Mason, but more extremely so.) Ideally I'd be in the Ancap vertex though.

Is Objectivism more Individualism or Darwinism?

Individualism. They kind of end up in the same place, though.

I'd probably put Ayn Rand a little bit above the "m" in the word separatism. She was a ethical egoist which predisposed her toward darwinism, but also she believed strongly in individualism. So a good measure of both. As far as the state's role, she believed that it was necessary to protect individual rights, and that is all. Objectivism isn't only a political philosophy though. It is also an ethical and moral philosophy. So different objectivists might reach different political conclusions (albeit only slightly.) 

I don't like the triangle.
I think there are always 4 possibilities, not 3 :

----Both----
Yes ------No
----None----


Thus :

---Superiority(Fascism)---
Order-------Chaos
-------Egality-------

I consider myself a contemporary marxist, my views have already transcended the triangle ^^

There are still  two decisions on this triangle. The choices are just not mutually-exclusive. You have individualism/self-control vs. external control, and inherent hierarchies vs. no inherent hierarchies. What the triangle does that a quadrilateral would not is express the foci between these two spectrums for compatible ideologies only so much that the spectrums are mutually exclusive. For example, egalitarianism and individualism are mutually-exclusive in many cases, so you can't be purely one and purely the other at the same time. The more extremely individualistic you are the less extremely egalitarian you can potentially be. That isn't to say there aren't overlaps between the two, though. 

The order vs. chaos spectrum can be interpreted correctly but often it runs into connotation issues, because when people think of "chaos" they thing "random" or "unorganized." I think a better terminology to replace it would be "centrally planned" vs. "decentrally planned", "design-oriented" vs. "action-oriented", or "planned order" vs. "spontaneous order."