The following table is from page 171 of Fundamentals of Investing (11th edition) by Gitman, Joehnk, Smart. Please consider only the X, Y and XY columns (second, third, fifth).
Portfolio XY comprises assets X and Y in the proportion $2:1$. As you can see, while the average expected (here, "expected" is not used in the statistical sense, but to mean the forecast value) returns of assets X and Y have a standard deviation of $3.16$ and $6.32$ respectively, portfolio XY's expected return has a standard deviation of $0$!

Some further context: The authors are trying to illustrate the power of diversification: by replacing $\frac13$ of the original quantity of X with Y, the expected return of the portfolio is increased, while its risk (the standard deviation of the expected return) is decreased.
But how can the portfolio's risk possibly become nil !? Can someone pinpoint what is amiss?
There is no paradox. The textbook's conclusion is correct within its own framework. Zero standard derivation simply doesn't mean risk-free. In real market, 5-$\sigma$ events occur much more frequently than expected. The risks associated with these events are usually unhedgeable and cannot be measured properly using "standard derivation". People sometimes use other tools like "value at risk" to compensate "standard derivation". The "value at risk" is simply an estimate of the maximum potential lose within 95% level of confidence.