From a blog called 2012 AD and Beyond, signed by someone named Kevin Baum, but posted by one "Shelly Starzz":

Facts: the Mayan long count calendar does end on the winter solstice on December 21, 2012, and it does coincide with a rare alignment of our rising sun positioned in the center of the Milky Way galaxy (from an earthly perspective), and both occur in the time of the Precessional transfer from the age of Pisces to the age of Aquarius, an event that only happens every 26000 years. (This 'alignment' is particularly interesting when you consider that the center of the Milky Way galaxy, frequently referred to as the 'great rift' is framed by four prominent stars that form an upside down cross; so, on the winter solstice 2012 the 'sun' will be 'hung' on a 'cross' as it aligns with the center of the galaxy, each rising and setting together. Now there is some symbolism to keep you awake at night.)

[Italics added]

Problem: The astrological "event" highlighted by the italics does not actually occur in the sky. One of the dirty little secrets of astrology is that the supposed alignments and other hoo-hah it purports to describe have nothing to do with any astronomical reality. Nothing is "in" Pisces or "in" Aquarius. Pisces and Aquarius themselves are only apparent constellations. The stars that compose those figures (which are a force-fit exercise in pareidolia anyway) are not actually located in the same area of space—it just looks that way from Earth.

In any case, symbolism is a human invention, and it will never keep me awake at night.

There is an ancient zen proverb that I love, and it is simple: That which you are seeking, is always seeking you. This proverb is, in my opinion, a beautiful salutation to human capability and inventiveness, and communicates that if you hold to a vision, you can make that vision a reality. How very cool.

This may be an ancient proverb, but if it's zen, it's very un-zen, IMO. (The Fool happens to be a zen student.)

Never mind that. Because the real problem with this graph is the ridiculous assertion that "...if you hold to a vision, you can make that vision a reality." Lest anyone imagine the author is talking about the benefits of persistence and hard work, read on:

And how very dangerous...especially if so many people, indeed MILLIONS OF THEM, are holding to the vision that the world will end in 2012.

Millions? I don't know about that. Sure, the History Channel has persuaded lots of eyeballs to watch its bullshit pseudo-docs about Nostradamus and the Mayan "prophecy," but those same viewers got up next morning and made their coffee and went to work (or went looking for work, in today's economy).  I have yet to meet any person who seriously thinks the end is coming in 2012. A lot of people buying badly written books, maybe, but "holding to the vision?" Not so much.

But wait! The unsupported assertions are not done yet:

There is an emerging awareness in both the scientific and new age literature that groups of people can influence events simply through collective 'willfulness.' The phenomenon is referred to as 'collective manifestation.' Simply put, if enough people believe in a thing, whatever that thing is, they will influence the probability that that thing will likely occur.

Uh-oh. It seems he's been drinking the Rhonda Byrne Kool-Aid. For the record then, everybody take out your pencils and write this down: there is NO scientific basis for anything occurring as a result of mere wishing, regardless of the number of wishers involved. There is no "phenomenon" of this type. That word—phenomenon—has a specific meaning: "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, esp. one whose cause or explanation is in question." Calling a nonexistent thing a "phenomenon" is an exercise in question-begging, a logical fallacy much in favor among the muddy thinkers of the woo-woo crowd. It is the cause of a phenomenon that is in question, not the phenomenon itself. And people have been wishing for all kinds of impossible things since the dawn of humanity without actually getting them. There. Is. No. Such. Thing.

For example, if the bible says that the Temple Mount has to fall before Christ will return, and millions believe that he will return in the age of 2012; well, then somebody has to go out there and destroy that darn Temple. Collective beliefs, especially if they are unreasonable and fanatic, foment action.

Huh? Are we talking about the Temple or the Temple Mount? They are not the same thing. The former is indeed the object of prophecy, and it no longer exists; the latter is a mere geographic location. It's the same situation as the buildings formerly known as The World Trade Center and the current  location now referred to as Ground Zero.

The Bible (or more precisely, Jesus) does indeed seem to predict that the Temple will be destroyed, and in fact that did happen. It is less clear whether (a) this "prediction" was in fact made before the event it supposedly predicts, and (b) that this was an actual precondition for Jesus' supposed return, since although more than 19 centuries have passed since the Romans demolished Herod's Temple, Jesus is still not picking up his phone.

In case we are unclear as to just how far down the rabbit hole "Shelly Starzz" is trying to take us, s/he states it explicitly:

In other words, if enough people believe that 2012 = catastrophe, they can make it so.

That's disturbing...

No. No, it isn't.

No matter how many people believe something, that doesn't make it so. (That I have to say this in the 21st century is a real human tragedy.) Once, people believed the sun (indeed, the entire universe) orbited the Earth. It wasn't so then, and it's not so now. It didn't change. We simply stopped believing nonsense in the face of compelling evidence.

Millions of people misperceiving the nature of reality does not alter that reality. Of course, millions of people doing something about reality can sometimes alter reality, for better or worse: we can clean up our environment, or elect a non-white President, or end a war (or start one, for that matter). But wanting things to be different is merely the beginning of the change. It is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Mere wanting does nothing.

But that is most emphatically NOT what "Shelly Starzz" (or Kevin Baum) is talking about. S/he really believes the nonsense about creating your own reality, right down to altering the laws of the physical universe. (Reread the "phenomenon" passage above if you need a reminder). And that most definitely is disturbing.

Though not as disturbing as the link at the bottom of Shelly/Kevin's post to something called survivaloutpost.com. I've seen a few of these outfits now, and I have to laugh. They envision the collapse of civilization, and trade on gullible people's fears. Just look at two of the "featured products"  on their web site: hand-cranked radios and GPS receivers.

WTF? Society has collapsed, but radio stations and orbiting sattelites—two highly sophisticated and vulnerable technologies—will be exempt? I question the supposed expertise of survivalists who failed to foresee this difficulty. (Unless of course experts are simply con men hoping to separate gullible nitwits from some more of their money. But no, that can't be.)